The CWD scam

[elkhunter505]

Captive game should be under the direction of the Dept of Agriculture not Game and FIsh. Most states are already like that.

I disagree. If they’re the same species as a wild animal that the Game and Fish manages, they should be under the Game and Fish because there are direct links of consequences for disease transmission, change in genetic structure, etc. Breeding wild animals is a black box and congregating them at artificial densities like is seen in the high fence industry is just an accident waiting to happen.

 

[elkhunter505]

I guess in another sense, if the Dept of Agriculture treated CWD like they treated Brucellosis, Mad Cow, etc. they could make breeders kill their whole farm because they wouldn’t be able to know which animals were positive and which were negative until post mortem. I guess depending on how you think about it and how friendly each department is to breeders, it could work for or against them. If they treat wild animals like they treat cattle, those breeders may end up getting trashed by ending up under the Dept of Agriculture.

 

[ScreamingPotato]

Some of you shouldn’t leave your house without a helmet on. The odds of YOU or your dog you value more than human life being the first non cervid to get CWD from deer meat is around 0.00001%. It’s been consumed by 100s of thousands humans and K9s for 70 years at least. So yea, the dog food you buy at Costco that has god knows what in it is exponentially worse for your dogs than any deer meat. LOL. I enjoy learning how people’s brains go through these mathematical mental gymnastics though. Carry on!

Or we'll just do what we want and not care.
I actually make my dog's food myself, so just another thing you're wrong about.

I guess in another sense, if the Dept of Agriculture treated CWD like they treated Brucellosis, Mad Cow, etc. they could make breeders kill their whole farm because they wouldn’t be able to know which animals were positive and which were negative until post mortem. I guess depending on how you think about it and how friendly each department is to breeders, it could work for or against them. If they treat wild animals like they treat cattle, those breeders may end up getting trashed by ending up under the Dept of Agriculture.

Somebody was talking recently about wanting the TAHC (Texas animal health commission) to manage the breeders. I don't think it would end up a positive thing like they think, they'd probably be a lot more aggressive killing off entire herds and carry a lot more clout than TPWD.

 

[wind gypsy]

Exactly. They’re always calling for people in WI to kill more deer through hunting and some hunters have not followed through. They have the opportunity to do it but many refuse to shoot does in many cases. If people are calling for government culling, it’s because those animals are inaccessible to public hunters, urban deer, private land, etc., or the hunters themselves have been given the opportunity to kill more deer and they refuse to do it. MT had a proposal for a CWD management mule deer hunt in region 6 last fall. Despite showing that that specific areas mule deer population is over objective by like 20 or 30%, the public shot it down saying there are too few mule deer. If there were too few, there wouldn’t be as high of a CWD prevalence.

Separate conversation.. But MT population "objectives" and population status against the objective isn't a great indicator of how many deer "should" be present. Mule Deer in region 6 generally aren't doing well and its reasonable for people to not want to hammer them more. Its not like central WI or SE MN whitetails where the population is super high regardless of what FWP says about #'s compared to objective.

 

[elkhunter505]

Or we'll just do what we want and not care.
I actually make my dog's food myself, so just another thing you're wrong about.


Somebody was talking recently about wanting the TAHC (Texas animal health commission) to manage the breeders. I don't think it would end up a positive thing like they think, they'd probably be a lot more aggressive killing off entire herds and carry a lot more clout than TPWD.

If they thought it through fully, they might realize that the rules for animal disease are a lot different in the domestic sector than they are in the wild sector and it would likely end up being a net negative for them if the agency has any sort of objectivity.

 

[Skerhunter]

The time factor is important, as is pressure. Longer and higher pressure, the lower temperatures you can get away with.

Correct - very familiar with accumulated lethality is steam sterilization processes.

 

[elkhunter505]

Separate conversation.. But MT population "objectives" and population status against the objective isn't a great indicator of how many deer "should" be present. Mule Deer in region 6 generally aren't doing well and it’s reasonable for people to not want to hammer them more.

Fair enough, we could discuss it in another place if need be. The survey results for all 3 of those districts are between 40% and 188% over the long term average which seems odd to me but I’m new so I can’t say.

 

[wind gypsy]

The management of breeders has been a football kicked around in MN. People were very unhappy with the dept of animal health's oversight so it authority was moved to the DNR recently.

 

[Torque]

I work in anatomical pathology. I have skinned hundred of deer. If someone is worried about CWD infected meat, I pray that you never educate yourself on some of the histological and morphological diseases I have found in deer. I have never had a problem eating the meat.

 

[UKwildcatfan]

Don't the same ticks that pass lyme and alpha gal to humans get attached to deer, their host? Wouldn't the deer be a carrier? Can you get lyme or alpha gal from deer meat?

 

[RockAndSage]

Some of you shouldn’t leave your house without a helmet on. The odds of YOU or your dog you value more than human life being the first non cervid to get CWD from deer meat is around 0.00001%. It’s been consumed by 100s of thousands humans and K9s for 70 years at least. So yea, the dog food you buy at Costco that has god knows what in it is exponentially worse for your dogs than any deer meat. LOL. I enjoy learning how people’s brains go through these mathematical mental gymnastics though. Carry on!

And...the total number of days spent hunting in America each year is 241 million, with 1000 gun accidents across all that, and "only" 100 deaths. Statistically, that's a .00004% chance of dying in a hunting accident.

Are we all just fools and suckers of a scam in practicing gun safety?

Is it all just "mathematical mental gymnastics"?

Is this all just something that other, more courageous people simply see right through, blowing past that yellow light on their motorcycle with no helmet, with a beer in one hand and a cell phone in the other, calling everyone else sissies in their own haze of Survivor's Fallacy?

Please, enlighten us to how we're all just living in fear.

 

[Speaks]

And...the total number of days spent hunting in America each year is 241 million, with 1000 gun accidents across all that, and "only" 100 deaths. Statistically, that's a .00004% chance of dying in a hunting accident.

Are we all just fools and suckers of a scam in practicing gun safety?

Is it all just "mathematical mental gymnastics"?

Is this all just something that other, more courageous people simply see right through, blowing past that yellow light on their motorcycle with no helmet, with a beer in one hand and a cell phone in the other, calling everyone else sissies in their own haze of Survivor's Fallacy?

Please, enlighten us to how we're all just living in fear.

The other way to look at those gun deaths is that CWD is far less likely to kill you than a hunting accident, probably even more so if you add in non-gun accidents which are likely greater. If you were to add in driving accidents on the way to hunt it gets more dangerous yet. Those are all preventable deaths as well by just choosing not to hunt at all.

I am not saying that CWD is not a concern just that as you put it in context of lots of risks that we are more familiar with and accept that it can be blown out of proportion due to being novel.

Lots of roksliders will not live as long as they could have due to diet choices but those deaths are far more likely to come from processed food than CWD positive deer.

None of this is to argue that we should not be doing anything. Widely available testing, restrictions on baiting, even eliminating captive cervid operations might all be quite reasonable measures.

 

[Reburn]

Here in Texas most of the loudest CWD naysayers are deer breeders or know people who are breeders. They're upset because they have to follow rules from TPWD for movements and testing of animals they move around the state.

Did you know if you hunt the King Ranch they have you sign a paper saying among other things that you wont have your deer CWD tested. They dont want CWD to be found in the county as it would become a detection zone and effect their hunting.

If they thought it through fully, they might realize that the rules for animal disease are a lot different in the domestic sector than they are in the wild sector and it would likely end up being a net negative for them if the agency has any sort of objectivity.

This is wrong. The diseases are the same. spongiform encephalopathy is present in sheep as scrapies, Cervids as CWD, cattle as mad cow and humans as crutchfield jacobs disease. Outside of blue tounge (which livestock can get) and EHD, deer dont get anything cattle or sheep and goats dont get.

I guess in another sense, if the Dept of Agriculture treated CWD like they treated Brucellosis, Mad Cow, etc. they could make breeders kill their whole farm because they wouldn’t be able to know which animals were positive and which were negative until post mortem. I guess depending on how you think about it and how friendly each department is to breeders, it could work for or against them. If they treat wild animals like they treat cattle, those breeders may end up getting trashed by ending up under the Dept of Agriculture.

There is an accepted live test.

Or we'll just do what we want and not care.
I actually make my dog's food myself, so just another thing you're wrong about.


Somebody was talking recently about wanting the TAHC (Texas animal health commission) to manage the breeders. I don't think it would end up a positive thing like they think, they'd probably be a lot more aggressive killing off entire herds and carry a lot more clout than TPWD.

TAHC already manages the other susceptible species. Sika and Elk. And all other livestock.
TPWD only manages the WT and MD.
Makes sense that the agency that handles livestock health handles it all.

 

[RockAndSage]

The other way to look at those gun deaths is that CWD is far less likely to kill you than a hunting accident, probably even more so if you add in non-gun accidents which are likely greater. If you were to add in driving accidents on the way to hunt it gets more dangerous yet. Those are all preventable deaths as well by just choosing not to hunt at all.

I am not saying that CWD is not a concern just that as you put it in context of lots of risks that we are more familiar with and accept that it can be blown out of proportion due to being novel.

Lots of roksliders will not live as long as they could have due to diet choices but those deaths are far more likely to come from processed food than CWD positive deer.

None of this is to argue that we should not be doing anything. Widely available testing, restrictions on baiting, even eliminating captive cervid operations might all be quite reasonable measures.

We're essentially arguing the same point on this. People can hunt, ride, dive, race, fly, and even skydive while taking clear-headed, prudent precautions that address threats and risks. It's the buffoonery of pretending there are no risks worth noting that is absurd, especially when it's also combined with straw-men arguments that those who note the risks and take prudent precautions are somehow "living in fear" and being scammed that is so pitiful.

 

[Speaks]

I don't work on CWD directly, but I am one of the guys that does code these algorithms for other wildlife management decisions. I can tell 99% of the people making it up to this level have to take science ethics courses or are exposed heavily to science ethics. We have a job to be objective in our modeling regardless of what we may believe personally. It's directly in our own interest to be objective and transparent because if we aren't it is a major detriment to our own job security. I know that I have opinions but when it comes down to it on science, my opinions and biases take a backseat because I have a job to be objective and let the data and science speak for itself.

Just playing some devils advocate here. Two things first though 1) I have zero experience doing data modeling for wildlife though have lots of experience doing it in other fields and 2) None of my points are implying unethical or intentional skewing of modeling results

When modeling complex situations happening in the real world no model can be perfect or account for all variables. You can very often present 2 or 3 different models that all seem quite reasonable that produce very different results. The various stages of filtering to build and select which model to use are often somewhat subjective. A person making these calls is often influenced by what they believe to be true. This bias is reflected in the end model even in a scenerio where the people involved are trying to be as neutral as possible. This does not mean that a model giving results contrary to their position will never be selected but when there are "near ties" it tends to go in favor of what they believe to be true.

People also tend to have a natural bias to believe things that align with their incentives. CWD researchers are more likely to continue getting grant money if CWD is a concern than if it is not. There would generally a tendency to believe things supporting this, and there would then tend to be model selection supporting this as well. This is all assuming everyone involved is 100% honest and ethical.

Models are useful tools but their accuracy is often over stated.

 

[elkhunter505]

Just playing some devils advocate here. Two things first though 1) I have zero experience doing data modeling for wildlife though have lots of experience doing it in other fields and 2) None of my points are implying unethical or intentional skewing of modeling results

When modeling complex situations happening in the real world no model can be perfect or account for all variables. You can very often present 2 or 3 different models that all seem quite reasonable that produce very different results. The various stages of filtering to build and select which model to use are often somewhat subjective. A person making these calls is often influenced by what they believe to be true. This bias is reflected in the end model even in a scenerio where the people involved are trying to be as neutral as possible. This does not mean that a model giving results contrary to their position will never be selected but when there are "near ties" it tends to go in favor of what they believe to be true.

People also tend to have a natural bias to believe things that align with their incentives. CWD researchers are more likely to continue getting grant money if CWD is a concern than if it is not. There would generally a tendency to believe things supporting this, and there would then tend to be model selection supporting this as well. This is all assuming everyone involved is 100% honest and ethical.

Models are useful tools but their accuracy is often over stated.

You’re 100% correct when it comes to models not being able to truly account for nature. Theres this quote that almost every modeling class I have ever taken has shown: “All models are wrong, some are useful” - GC Box. And most recently I have seen a funnier, more pessimistic way of phrasing it: “No model is right and most are useless” - Todd Arnold. We all recognize that there is no way we can ever get to the true underlying process. Ecological systems are too complex for us to account for everything and we will never be able to. That does not mean that a model is not worthy of being used to inform management. We can get close and even mimic these things 100 different ways but we have statistical training through model validation and information criterions to select which model we create is the most accurate given the data we have. Almost every modeling paper is using some type of model selection to decide what model they created is the most informative model. That’s how we deal with the 100 ways to skin a cat scenario. That’s why we create multiple hypotheses surrounding each problem we are trying to tackle. That’s why allows us to find what the most informative hypothesis is and use that to manage in the future until someone else comes along and gives us a better model.

When it comes to the bias, that is always a possibility, but I would argue that peer-reviewed research will not allow you to have biased justifications behind your models. There is nothing more an academic likes than to tell another academic they’re wrong or their methods are wrong. I remember being younger and being frustrated by someone tearing into my analysis when I submitted a paper or a draft, but now I find myself doing the exact same thing to papers that I review. I have no idea why but when it comes to models, its like all those times I was criticized (validly) for my methods sunk into me and now I’m that guy trying to make sure analyses that people are doing are unbiased and follow the correct assumptions.

When it comes to CWD, before CWD people were working on EHD, bluetongue, insert your favorite wildlife disease or parasite here, etc. There’s no shortage of wildlife diseases to study: COVID in deer, white nose syndrome in bats, chytrid fungus in amphibians, rabies in carnivores, so if CWD were to be solved (which everyone wants to see happen), these people would move on to other things similarly to how people that studied lungworms or parainfluenza3 moved on to study M. Ovi in bighorn sheep when they proved that lungworms and parainfluenza were not the culprits for pneumonia.

I feel this opinion is shared across many people that I know, we don’t do wildlife biology for the paychecks. Trust me, we do not get paid enough for it to be for the money. We do it to solve problems and make things better for the wildlife and the people that value them. We do it because we find these systems cool and interesting to learn about as well. Additionally, no day of work is ever the same, it’s always something different. If we only worked on the same thing forever, it would get boring to us. Trust me, if the people working on CWD could solve it and move on to something else, they would in a heartbeat.

 

[wjj605]

Considering humans can contract Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (vCJD) from eating beef from Mad Cow disease positive cattle, I think I’ll pass from eating CWD positive cervid meat. Would you feed it to your children? For me that’s a firm NO.

 

[Speaks]

You’re 100% correct when it comes to models not being able to truly account for nature. Theres this quote that almost every modeling class I have ever taken has shown: “All models are wrong, some are useful” - GC Box. And most recently I have seen a funnier, more pessimistic way of phrasing it: “No model is right and most are useless” - Todd Arnold. We all recognize that there is no way we can ever get to the true underlying process. Ecological systems are too complex for us to account for everything and we will never be able to. That does not mean that a model is not worthy of being used to inform management. We can get close and even mimic these things 100 different ways but we have statistical training through model validation and information criterions to select which model we create is the most accurate given the data we have. Almost every modeling paper is using some type of model selection to decide what model they created is the most informative model. That’s how we deal with the 100 ways to skin a cat scenario. That’s why we create multiple hypotheses surrounding each problem we are trying to tackle. That’s why allows us to find what the most informative hypothesis is and use that to manage in the future until someone else comes along and gives us a better model.

When it comes to the bias, that is always a possibility, but I would argue that peer-reviewed research will not allow you to have biased justifications behind your models. There is nothing more an academic likes than to tell another academic they’re wrong or their methods are wrong. I remember being younger and being frustrated by someone tearing into my analysis when I submitted a paper or a draft, but now I find myself doing the exact same thing to papers that I review. I have no idea why but when it comes to models, its like all those times I was criticized (validly) for my methods sunk into me and now I’m that guy trying to make sure analyses that people are doing are unbiased and follow the correct assumptions.

When it comes to CWD, before CWD people were working on EHD, bluetongue, insert your favorite wildlife disease or parasite here, etc. There’s no shortage of wildlife diseases to study: COVID in deer, white nose syndrome in bats, chytrid fungus in amphibians, rabies in carnivores, so if CWD were to be solved (which everyone wants to see happen), these people would move on to other things similarly to how people that studied lungworms or parainfluenza3 moved on to study M. Ovi in bighorn sheep when they proved that lungworms and parainfluenza were not the culprits for pneumonia.

I feel this opinion is shared across many people that I know, we don’t do wildlife biology for the paychecks. Trust me, we do not get paid enough for it to be for the money. We do it to solve problems and make things better for the wildlife and the people that value them. We do it because we find these systems cool and interesting to learn about as well. Additionally, no day of work is ever the same, it’s always something different. If we only worked on the same thing forever, it would get boring to us. Trust me, if the people working on CWD could solve it and move on to something else, they would in a heartbeat.

Yea I dont disagree on any of that. I understand the potential utility and limitations of modeling and they certainly are valuable tools. I also agree on motivations of the vast majority of those working in this space.

I am a bit more skeptical of the peer review process though I dont have a better alternative. The James Lyndsay hoax papers getting published in peer reviewed journals being a hyperbolic but true example of how it does not always serve as an effective filter.

Generally the process works as intended though and I dont actually doubt your conclusions, you do seem like the most knowledgeable SME in this thread on this topic. I do sometimes question the resulting management practices relating to CWD but as you said thats often aside from the science involved and into looking at competing values.

I do prefer getting my deer tested, and just wish I could do so in WI without submitting the whole head.

 

[mt terry d]

Guys would drop off a skull and be in a required testing zone. 2 weeks later they were shocked that their very healthy fat forkhorn mule deer had cwd.

So either test every single deer or simply know that sooner or later you are going to be eating one with cwd.

Correct. Or discard every deer you kill because, well, you really want to kill something.

And how many die from old age that would test positive for CWD?

I'll bet 99% of the deer that people have shot and tested positive were healthy in every other way.

Just because it tests positive obviously doesn't mean it will ever kill the deer.

 

[NRA4LIFE]

Just because it tests positive obviously doesn't mean it will ever kill the deer.

Incorrect.

CWD causes considerable ecologic, economic and sociologic impact, as this is a 100% fatal highly contagious infectious disease, with no treatment or cure available.