Go Back   QDMA Forums > General QDM > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 02-25-2012, 01:58 PM
wolc123 wolc123 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 1,185
Default

Thanks for taking the time to share your story with us deep south. Not many folks from that perspective (high fence) have been willing to post here, but all views are welcome. Personally, I am about as far as one can get in the US from you, way up on the Canadian border. EHD is completely unheard of up here, much like wild hogs that plague you folks down there. Here in Upstate NY, we did have a couple cases of CWD, but it sounds like it has been contained. It was definitely linked to deer farms. From what I have read on the two deseases, it sounds like a high fence would not contribute to the spread of EHD (transmitted mostly by fly bites), but there can be no doubt that CWD (transmitted mostly by contact) can, using my state as a prime example. As far as the law goes, I think that should be left to each individual state to decide. I would probably vote to make deer farms illegal in New York if I could, but I have little concern over what you Southern folks do. I have spent enough time with Alabama deer hunters to know that they take deer hunting very seriously. Good luck this coming season.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 02-25-2012, 02:18 PM
winterquartersmgr's Avatar
winterquartersmgr winterquartersmgr is offline
QDMA Sponsor Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: tensas parish, lousiana
Posts: 1,898
Default

Deepsouth,

What you are describing is animal husbandtry and NOT wildlife management. There is a clear difference between the two. Yes EHD does kill more deer per year than CWD does BUT EHD happens every year and is not spread by direct contact between animals....
__________________
Justin F.

Certified Deer Steward 1
Certified Deer Steward 2
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:06 PM
sandbur sandbur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Minnesota (old USDA 3, new zone 4)
Posts: 11,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr View Post
So you would be comfortable with the state dictating whether or not you could plant food plots for deer on your private property if they believed that they could potentially contribute to the spread of disease thus impacting the resource?

If such a determination was made, should QDMA be vocal in promoting the banning of such practices?

Good questions. I would say YES to both!
__________________
Healthy Habitat, Healthy Deer, Less Antler Obsession-All for the Sake of our Hunting Tradition

NRA Life Member
Muskies, Inc. Life Member
Minnesota Deer Hunters Association
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:21 PM
sandbur sandbur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Minnesota (old USDA 3, new zone 4)
Posts: 11,129
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by darin View Post
This is why education is key.

Maya

The deer farms are the most govered ag business. Deer on the inside of the fence are not spreading dieseses. Because every single deer is tested and accounted for. Every deer on the out side of the fence are not tested and that is where the diseases are at.
This is the only way I can see quality deer. Out of the fence every deer around me is shot at 1 1/2 years old. My family, friends, and I would not see quality deer if not for fencing.
Thank You

I wish to clarify things, here, just a bit. All deer over a specified age are tested for CWD at death. There is no good test for CWD before death. Deer and elk are to be ear tagged and the count has to be verified annually by a local veterinarian or other state official. State officials inspect the fences annually. The original proposal was for a double fence around all domestic deer or elk facilities, but this was dropped due to cost.

Our deer and elk FARMS are heavily regulated, but escapes still happen. The number of deer FARMS has dropped as these regulations have been put in place. Less and less of the backyard hobby type deer facilites exist.

The state spends lots of dollars trying to catch the escaped deer or elk. Four deer or elk FARMS have had CWD positive animals. Then a wild CWD positive deer was found near the location of the last CWD elk facility. The state has lots of expenses from monitoring the wild deer around this abandoned facility. Ther are problems with poor fences and the ground of this facility is contaminated, maybe forever with CWD.

These facilities are under the AG department and thus should be called deer FARMS in my book.


QDMA took the correct action on this!

I
__________________
Healthy Habitat, Healthy Deer, Less Antler Obsession-All for the Sake of our Hunting Tradition

NRA Life Member
Muskies, Inc. Life Member
Minnesota Deer Hunters Association
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:29 PM
sandbur sandbur is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Minnesota (old USDA 3, new zone 4)
Posts: 11,129
Default

States are going to be spending Millions of dollars on CWD regardless of whether or not game farms exist. If you look at the natural progression of CWD through the Platte River watershed, it is slowly working it's way East. That progression is likely to continue unabated unless some changes are made to herd management, changes that are likely to be very unpopular with many hunters, including many QDMA members. One published scientific paper (Clements et. al) suggests that an effective means of limiting the spread of CWD along Riparian corridors (river systems) would be to concentrate harvest on male fawns and yearling bucks. If it proved an effective means in limiting the spread of CWD, would you be willing to abandon that advanced buck age structure that you have been working towards achieving and concentrate on harvesting button bucks and yearling bucks?[/quote]

Munster, do you have a direct link to that paper by Clements?

It seems like I have seen that type of thinking on the forum before. Perhaps less bucks, a poorer buck to doe ratio, would slow the spread of the disease? Maybe even lead to healthier herds?
__________________
Healthy Habitat, Healthy Deer, Less Antler Obsession-All for the Sake of our Hunting Tradition

NRA Life Member
Muskies, Inc. Life Member
Minnesota Deer Hunters Association
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 02-25-2012, 03:56 PM
maya maya is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Jan 1970
Location: Florence, Vt.
Posts: 4,654
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr View Post
Again, the largest outbreak in the Midwest, in Wisconsin and Illinois, seems to have occurred due to the improper disposal of infected carcasses that were brought east by hunters who had been hunting in Colorado in the 1960's. There is absolutely no evidence that a captive game farm had anything to do with that outbreak, which would contradict your claim above. The occurence in Michigan was in a 3 year old doe that had been born and raised on the game farm that it was found on. When the farm was depopulated, none of the other 85 or so deer were CWD positive. The only likely source of contamination was due to the improper importation of a deer that a hunter had shot out west, that was brought to the taxidermy operation at the game farm and the residue improperly disposed of where the farmed deer could come into contact with it.

In both cases, hunters, not game farms were the most likely nexus for the importation of CWD into a new area. I'll ask you again, are you willing to take a similar hard line stance in banning the transfer of meat by hunters across state lines, as you apparently are in shutting down high fence hunting operations? It's a reasonable question.

And before you label me a troll, I have no connections with captive hunting, have never done it and never plan to and I've been posting on various internet hunting forums for many years, including this one. In fact I've been highly critical of the captive cervid industry in the past and would like to see it increasingly regulated. But if an organization like QMDA is going to take a position that could potentially put tens of thousands of people out of business, then that position had better be based on sound science and that same science should be applied equally across the board, not just at one particular potential vector, particularly if that one vector is selected based on arbitrary moral or ethical concerns and not on science.

States are going to be spending Millions of dollars on CWD regardless of whether or not game farms exist. If you look at the natural progression of CWD through the Platte River watershed, it is slowly working it's way East. That progression is likely to continue unabated unless some changes are made to herd management, changes that are likely to be very unpopular with many hunters, including many QDMA members. One published scientific paper (Clements et. al) suggests that an effective means of limiting the spread of CWD along Riparian corridors (river systems) would be to concentrate harvest on male fawns and yearling bucks. If it proved an effective means in limiting the spread of CWD, would you be willing to abandon that advanced buck age structure that you have been working towards achieving and concentrate on harvesting button bucks and yearling bucks?

Seems like you are just someone that wants to argue. I am saying that high fence operations are a major reason for the spread of CWD. Right? You keep quoteing me and then arguing against what I've said. Yet in another thread you said this......."Certainly apears to be some kind of a correlation between deer farms and outbreaks in the free ranging herd."........ http://www.qdma.com/forums/showthrea...927#post464927

Pretty much what I've been saying. LOL!

I think the QDMA's position is spot on! I've had enough responding to you, it's pretty clear you just want to argue w/ people. Pretty sad!
__________________
A not so lonely Vermont QDMer anymore!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 02-25-2012, 04:26 PM
Tree Spud's Avatar
Tree Spud Tree Spud is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: South Central Wisconsin - Zone 4b
Posts: 1,836
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr View Post
Again, the largest outbreak in the Midwest, in Wisconsin and Illinois, seems to have occurred due to the improper disposal of infected carcasses that were brought east by hunters who had been hunting in Colorado in the 1960's. There is absolutely no evidence that a captive game farm had anything to do with that outbreak, which would contradict your claim above.

Why then is the DNR requiring high fenced operations in Wisconsin with single perimieter fences to erect a second perimeter fence?

The Hall Game Farm had a breach in their fence and multiple CWD infected deer escape.

How many deer do you think have been purchased deer from these farms, where people released them onto their property to "improve" their herd's genetics?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munsterlndr View Post
So you would be comfortable with the state dictating whether or not you could plant food plots for deer on your private property if they believed that they could potentially contribute to the spread of disease thus impacting the resource?

If such a determination was made, should QDMA be vocal in promoting the banning of such practices?

First, this is a straw man argument ... no merit to it and is only meant to deflect from the current issue.

Second, the state already has those powers currently on properties with CRP, MFL, WRP, and other easements or conservation programs they have on private property land.

Third, the state would have no ability to enforce or monitor as every food plot would become a "garden" or "agricultural crops". By the way, the double edge sword for the state, is that food plots have also help increase the deer kill and spread out the feeding activities of deer.

Forth, if it reached that point QDMA would need to review their stance based on the science available. Then members would need to evaluate their stance. In my opinion, I think QDMA has been ahead of the curve for quite some time regarding deer & habitat mgmt compared to most State Game agencies.

How can you state with certainty, that there is no evidence ... so these farms are okay? How do you know that all waste, body fluids, carcasses, etc. on these farms, have been handled propery over the last 20 years?
__________________
Work for a cause, not for applause. Live life to express, not to impress. Don't strive to make your presence noticed, just make your absence felt
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 02-25-2012, 04:35 PM
Munsterlndr's Avatar
Munsterlndr Munsterlndr is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Traverse City, MIchigan
Posts: 1,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by maya View Post
Seems like you are just someone that wants to argue. I am saying that high fence operations are a major reason for the spread of CWD. Right? You keep quoteing me and then arguing against what I've said. Yet in another thread you said this......."Certainly apears to be some kind of a correlation between deer farms and outbreaks in the free ranging herd."........ http://www.qdma.com/forums/showthrea...927#post464927

Pretty much what I've been saying. LOL!

I think the QDMA's position is spot on! I've had enough responding to you, it's pretty clear you just want to argue w/ people. Pretty sad!

Argue? How about a respectful discussion....... that's kind of the point of internet forums, unless you simply want to engage in group think where everybody agrees with everyone and only spouts the party line. Given the fact that you seem to be more interested in questioning the motivation of why others post, instead of what they are actually saying, maybe we should assume that's what you are looking for in a forum.

I just asked you some questions, apparently you are uncomfortable answering them. That's ok, I'm cool with that, feel free not to respond.

As far as the map that I posted, yes there does seem to be a correlation between deer farms and isolated outbreaks of CWD. That correlation is not definitive proof of a link but it certainly raises some questions, which is why I posted it. I'm no fan of captive cervid operations and I've been highly critical of them in the past, calling for very stringent regulations governing them, which should convince you that I'm not a trolling as you seem to like to accuse others of doing. The point that I'm making is that if QDMA is going to take a hard line approach condemning an entire industry because of the potential threat that it may pose to the free ranging deer resource, then it might want to take a long hard look in the mirror and at least try to be consistent about it's outrage. If QDMA or it's membership is unwilling to apply the same standards of disease prevention and engage in a reasonable examination of some of the products that it advertises or practices that it promotes and endorses that have a similar potential for exacerbating the spread of communicable disease, then maybe it should think twice about taking such a stand.

I realize that it may be uncomfortable for you and other hard core members to question dogma but doing so is what keeps an organization healthy and consistent.
__________________
Member:
QDMA
MCF
Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 02-25-2012, 04:59 PM
Munsterlndr's Avatar
Munsterlndr Munsterlndr is offline
QDMA Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Traverse City, MIchigan
Posts: 1,059
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tree Spud View Post
Why then is the DNR requiring high fenced operations in Wisconsin with single perimieter fences to erect a second perimeter fence?

The Hall Game Farm had a breach in their fence and multiple CWD infected deer escape.

How many deer do you think have been purchased deer from these farms, where people released them onto their property to "improve" their herd's genetics?

I said that according to the DNR, that the likely source of the Wisconsin and Illinois CWD outbreaks was hunters improperly disposing of carcasses brought back from out west, not from high fence animals. That does not mean that captive cervid operations pose no potential threat, I never said that they didn't. It's appropriate that the WDNR require double fencing and ongoing monitoring of such operations, I'm totally in favor of such actions. As far as "hunters" purchasing deer from game farms and releasing them to "improve" "thier" free ranging herd, as far as I'm aware, it's both illegal and ridiculous. I'd be all for throwing the book at such idiots. It's also a pretty sad commentary regarding some of the lengths that some "sportsman" will go to resulting from the plague of "Antlerphilia" that has infected the deer hunting community in recent years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tree Spud

First, this is a straw man argument ... no merit to it and is only meant to deflect from the current issue.

Second, the state already has those powers currently on properties with CRP, MFL, WRP, and other easements or conservation programs they have on private property land.

Third, the state would have no ability to enforce or monitor as every food plot would become a "garden" or "agricultural crops". By the way, the double edge sword for the state, is that food plots have also help increase the deer kill and spread out the feeding activities of deer.


Why is it a strawman argument? Do you seriously believe that food plots are not a potential vector for the spread of communicable disease? Really and truly? If so I've got stacks of scientific papers that you can read that might change your mind. My guess is that you are using the strawman claim because it's uncomfortable for you to acknowledge that a common practice endorsed by QDMA might potentially contribute to the spread of disease but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Whether a ban on food plots would be legally enforcible is immaterial to whether or not QDMA should be promoting them and endorsing them. Two substantially different things. For the record, understand that I'm not suggesting that food plots should be banned, I plant them myself and on whole believe that they provide some benefit to the resource. But that does not mean that I turn a blind eye towards their potential for spreading disease and like any other practice, the good has to outweigh the bad. If I knew bTB or CWD was present in the area, I would stop planting them.

I'd disagree that food plots increase the level of harvest and tend to spread deer out. In fact, I'd posit that the exact opposite is true in most cases and that food plots tend to increase carrying capacity and density and concentrate deer in manner that you don't find with natural browse. All too few property managers are willing to undertake the intensive antlerless harvest required to offset the increased density, they are too worried about screwing up their hunt for mature bucks.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tree Spud

Forth, if it reached that point QDMA would need to review their stance based on the science available. Then members would need to evaluate their stance. In my opinion, I think QDMA has been ahead of the curve for quite some time regarding deer & habitat mgmt compared to most State Game agencies.

How can you state with certainty, that there is no evidence ... so these farms are okay? How do you know that all waste, body fluids, carcasses, etc. on these farms, have been handled propery over the last 20 years?

If it reached what point? If QDMA is promoting a public stance against captive cervid operations based on the potential threat of the spread of disease, then it would seem we are at the point where we should also be examining all of the other practices that can potentially spread disease.....what other point do we have to reach?

As far as me saying there is no evidence, I didn't say that, I said there is very little definitive scientific evidence regarding the impact of game farms compared to the scientific evidence that we have regarding other potential vectors. Again, I'm not an apologist for the game farm industry, I'm just saying that as an organization, if QDMA mounts a public campaign calling for limiting or closing down an entire industry, they should be completely consistent and make sure that a double standard does not exist regarding their own practices. Not sure why anyone would be uncomfortable with that sort of self examination, unless they are concerned that there might be some questionable issues.
__________________
Member:
QDMA
MCF
Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 02-25-2012, 06:26 PM
darin darin is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: MN
Posts: 21
Default

Education. One stated a case in NY. It could have come from people going out west hunting or just recreation and brought it back on their four-wheelers, trucks, trailers,or animals they brought back. Then a wild deer picked it up what could have been there for years. Just because the deer farmer has to test their animals does not mean they brought it in. No one knows exactly how it is transfered from animal to animal. If it was by animal to animal contact. there would be many more cases in like NY or MN or MO, but all you here is one case. In MN they found one case, now they have test around 3000 whitetails all negitive. If you test long and hard enough in a area for something you will find what you are testing for.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Powered by vBulletin Version 3.6.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.