EnviroLink Forum

Community • Ecology • Connection
It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 8:28 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 20  Next
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 6:18 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Fri Jan 15, 2010 2:02 am
Posts: 30
Grizzly Bear wrote:
CarolineTC wrote:
Grizzly Bear wrote:
Wow. If CarolineTC would lay off the ad hominem fallacies and the self-righteous, venomous diatribes perhaps we could actually have a rational discussion about deer populations. The subject of deer population management, particularly white-tails, is a complex, not simplistic, subject. It is covered constantly in papers published in professional wildlife management journals. There is no one single cause, and no one single solution, to the problem that some ( not all, I might add ) deer populations are too large. Causes for increased number of deer include the following:

- lack of natural top predators in many areas. Top predators would include species such as wolves, mountain lions, and grizzlies.

- increase in intensely cultivated agricultural lands in the past century. Deer are attracted to crops like corn, soy beans, and the like as an easy food source.

- the expansion of the suburbs. Deer are attracted to vegetable gardens, flowers, bushes, certain tree species, etc. found in suburban yards. Many places that are now suburbs were once rural deer habitat, but the deer do not leave. This is especially true in the heavily populated east coast.

- in many areas where deer population is considered high, there are private lands that are closed to hunting

- poorly thought-out deer hunting regulations/management that does not encourage the culling of enough females from the population. Many state wildlife agencies are now starting to realize that this is a factor and are adjusting their management strategies accordingly.

- a declining number of hunters because of today's highly urbanized/suburbanized society

As one can see, there are a myriad of things that could play a part in an increase in a given deer population. As such, to make a statement such as "hunting causes deer populations to increase" is actually quite irrational. Many ARs float out "deer contraception" as an alternative to hunting as a management tool. Deer contraception is not particularly viable as a solution in most cases. First is the poor cost-effectiveness of the operation, as it is extremely labor intensive. It is estimated that when both the labor and the cost of the drug itself are combined, it costs an average of $1000 to deliver one single dose of deer contraceptive. Second, is the fact that these drugs do not last a long time. One dose typically lasts one year, then the population has to be re-treated. Third, unless a particular deer population is isolated from other populations, it is difficult to treat enough does to achieve a net population decline, as new, untreated does can enter the population from other areas. Fourth, contraception does not produce an immediate decline in population, unlike hunting or other lethal control methods which produce immediate mortality in the population. It would take several years to notice a statistically significant decline in a contraception treated deer population if there is a lack of predators and/or it is not combined with a lethal form of population control. Fifth, is the possible ecological effects of using this, especially large-scale. We still do not fully understand the possible long-term implications for other wildlife by introducing these drugs into the food chain. And once the proverbial genie is let out of the proverbial bottle, it cannot be put back in. Deer contraception is simply a management tool available to biologists. It can be effective in certain situations, but not all, and probably not most. To push it as some kind of cure-all solution based on a knee-jerk, emotional dislike for hunting is reckless, irresponsible, and unwise.

I noticed the subject of Chronic Wasting Disease ( CWD ) was brought up in one of CarolineTC's rants. The air desperately needs to be cleared of the falsehoods and speculations in that post, as they are grossly irresponsible. These are the HARD FACTS about CWD:

- there has never been a confirmed case of a human contracting CWD

- the World Health Organization has determined that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that CWD is transmissible to humans. However, as biologists do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD, it is advised that animals killed in known CWD-infected areas be tested for the disease and not consumed if they test positive.

- the mean numbered of infected animals in the population is actually quite low. For example, in the combined areas of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming, where CWD is most prevalent, it is 5% for mule deer, 2% for white-tail deer, and >1% for elk.

You can learn more about the facts about CWD here:

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php



"Wow. If CarolineTC would lay off the ad hominem fallacies and the self-righteous, venomous diatribes perhaps we could actually have a rational discussion about deer populations. " GB


Hunters get insulted by something that is true, because I say you are a wildlife serial killers that is "insulting'? You kill right? Serial killing means killing more then one and its wildlife you are killing so what "ad hominem" about that when when we call you as is. Wildlife serial killers.

"- lack of natural top predators in many areas. Top predators would include species such as wolves, mountain lions, and grizzlies." GB


Are you reading what I have written? I don't think so because you know its the hunters killing deers natural predator and is encouraged.

"Varmints, specifically coyotes, are the biggest threats to fawn recruitment on most land throughout the United States. "Deer Management TX"

Hunting is NOT "natural" and is nothing like what naturals predators do. Man is no predator in the wild they are bunch of wildlife serial killeing dingbats who enjoy killing innocent animals for sports and trophy and destroy the natural balance and creates more deer thus higher Deer Vehicel Accidents.


"- increase in intensely cultivated agricultural lands in the past century. Deer are attracted to crops like corn, soy beans, and the like as an easy food source." GB

Must have missed the food plot parts of my comments

"- the expansion of the suburbs. Deer are attracted to vegetable gardens, flowers, bushes, certain tree species, etc. found in suburban yards. Many places that are now suburbs were once rural deer habitat, but the deer do not leave. This is especially true in the heavily populated east coast.

- in many areas where deer population is considered high, there are private lands that are closed to hunting" GB

What happens is deer seek refuge from gunshots and terrorist in the forest and that is why you find deer where there are no hunting. Hunters created large deer herd then start killing them each season and deer do not want to stay around where there is danger.

"- poorly thought-out deer hunting regulations/management that does not encourage the culling of enough females from the population. Many state wildlife agencies are now starting to realize that this is a factor and are adjusting their management strategies accordingly. " GB

again you did not read my comment clearly because it even talks about doe hunting to create more male fawn birth and its been "poorly thought-out" for very long time because they are not about long term deer herd reduction is that so hard for you to understand? What part of my comments did you miss?

"- a declining number of hunters because of today's highly urbanized/suburbanized society" GB

More reason the time has come for using IC wildlife contraception.

As one can see, there are a myriad of things that could play a part in an increase in a given deer population. As such, to make a statement such as "hunting causes deer populations to increase" is actually quite irrational. Many ARs float out "deer contraception" as an alternative to hunting as a management tool. Deer contraception is not particularly viable as a solution in most cases. First is the poor cost-effectiveness of the operation, as it is extremely labor intensive. It is estimated that when both the labor and the cost of the drug itself are combined, it costs an average of $1000 to deliver one single dose of deer contraceptive. Second, is the blabhallllaha..." GB

Again you did not read my comment about the "1,000 dollar a deer" lies from the hunting industry. You have not read a single thing I have written either that or you cannot read.

[color=#0000FF]Here is part of what Jay says in the video

"I know that quiet a few "expert" has found their way into Pittsburg both from Agencies (hunting) and other academic institutions and primarily their message has been "this doesn't work"..umm its interersting that "expert witnesess" who paraded themselves thru Pittsburg who never themselves been involved in wildlife contraceptives projects of any scales and they have offered to you a varities of opinions and ideas, congectures and assumptions but they haven't given you any numbers, they haven't given you any datas..." Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick, deer contraception expert, explains the startling successes in deer contraception, its authorization for use and availability. Dr. Kirkpatrick is the founder and Director of the Science and
Conservation Center, Montana. He has worked with
contraception on 90 species of animals, including wild horses, several species of deer, African elephants and water buffalo .


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aANcNyYbLpw



I noticed the subject of Chronic Wasting Disease ( CWD ) was brought up in one of CarolineTC's rants. The air desperately needs to be cleared of the falsehoods and speculations in that post, as they are grossly irresponsible. These are the HARD FACTS about CWD:

- there has never been a confirmed case of a human contracting CWD

- the World Health Organization has determined that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that CWD is transmissible to humans. However, as biologists do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD, it is advised that animals killed in known CWD-infected areas be tested for the disease and not consumed if they test positive.

- the mean numbered of infected animals in the population is actually quite low. For example, in the combined areas of northern Colorado and southern Wyoming, where CWD is most prevalent, it is 5% for mule deer, 2% for white-tail deer, and >1% for elk.

You can learn more about the facts about CWD here:

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php
" GB


"biologist do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD" they really either have no idea about the disease and the danger or they do and they are downplaying because that would ruin it for the hunting industry. Here is 2 sites I had created for the subject of CWD/CJD/Mad Deer Diseases because these are all diseases caused by prions so even though the death may not be listed as "CWD" in humans it can be considered CJD or early case of Alzheimer. CWD death can mimic other disease caused by the mutant protein called prions.

"While wildlife agencies play down any danger, they also provide stark warnings not to eat animal parts considered to be at highest risk, such as the brain and nervous tissue. Many suggest that meat from an infected animal not be eaten at all.
"It's kind of a mixed message," says Jim Woodward, a Wellington, Colo., activist who opposes the state's approach. "They seem to be comfortable in making some extremely definitive statements that humans aren't going get this disease. And that's exactly what happened in England in the 1980s," in the early days of mad cow.
Some researchers share his skepticism. Working with mice, University of Colorado neurologist Patrick Bosque has detected infectious prions not only in neural tissue but in muscle, and believes CWD may be transmissible to other species, including humans. It is a view shared by many who study the disease.
"We have to be careful about concluding that it hasn't happened," says Hoover.
"Unfortunately, both the federal and state governments are badly bungling this issue and falsely reassuring people that what happened in Britain could never happen here. The Centers for Disease Control should have made all cases of human CJD reportable to monitor the true number, but in 1999 refused to do so. " "

http://www.myspace.com/maddeer1967 (that is myspace site just put my information)

Here is the youtube

http://www.youtube.com/user/MadDeerDisease

Here is an aritcle called What the government isn't telling you about mad deer disease.

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/ ... index.html


Overall Mr. Grizzly you have no answered much of my questions instead it was ignored because you have repeated that has already been refuted.



Quote:
Hunters get insulted by something that is true, because I say you are a wildlife serial killers that is "insulting'? You kill right? Serial killing means killing more then one and its wildlife you are killing so what "ad hominem" about that when when we call you as is. Wildlife serial killers


No, your insults are simply YOUR OPINION. The diminish any argument you may have and paint you as juvenile, zealous, and emotional rather than rational. They speak volumes about your agenda, your character, and your maturity level. Furthermore, they are a logical fallacy because you are attacking people instead of attacking an argument. Do you understand this concept? Your use of the daft term "wildlife serial killer" shows ignorance. A "serial killer" is defined as someone who MURDERS ( key word ) three or more PEOPLE ( another key word ) over a period of thirty days or more. By definition, one cannot be a "serial killer" of animals. What you are doing is trying to manipulate the definition of a specific term in order to fit your agenda. Yet another sign of your lack of credibility.


Quote:
Hunting is NOT "natural" and is nothing like what naturals predators do. Man is no predator in the wild they are bunch of wildlife serial killeing dingbats who enjoy killing innocent animals for sports and trophy and destroy the natural balance and creates more deer thus higher Deer Vehicel Accidents.


More idiotic name calling with ZERO rational argument. And you expect to be taken seriously, madame? How old are you? 15?


Quote:
Again you did not read my comment about the "1,000 dollar a deer" lies from the hunting industry. You have not read a single thing I have written either that or you cannot read.



The estimate of $1000 per deer is not a "hunting industry lie". It comes from those who are experienced in the field who happen to disagree with Dr. Kirkpatrick's seemingly unrealistically low assessment of the cost. From the American Ecological Society: "The estimated cost of contraception is around $1,000 per deer to administer two treatments per year for two years."

http://tiee.ecoed.net/vol/v2/issues/fig ... ents3.html

From the National Audubon Society: "But the Humane Society's labor-intensive method--which costs about $1,000 per doe for the first two years of treatment--may keep it from widespread use."

http://audubonmagazine.org/webstories/d ... ntrol.html

Dale Garner, who is chief of the wildlife bureau in Iowa claims contraception costs anywhere from $300 t0 $1000 per deer:

http://www.science.siu.edu/zoology/scha ... 20Iowa.htm

The USDA claims that the GonaCon method of contraception can cost "several hundred dollars per deer depending upon many factors, such as how many deer need to be captured and whether the deer are easy or difficult to catch."

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/publications/ ... eer_08.pdf

Quote:
Here is Jay Kirkpatrick Phd even talks about how pro-kill advocates have their own "science" and Jay kirkpatrick had 15 years in wildlife contraception and you are arguing against his knowledge.?


As one who is has an education in the field of wildlife biology, I am familiar with Dr. Kirkpatrick's work. He is not, however, the only authority in the field. Wildlife biology, like any other science, has its differences of opinions on controversial theories, ideas, and methods. Dr. Kirkpatrick's opinions and claims are not the only ones that have validity or have evidence to support them. You simply are trying to imply that is the case because it fits your agenda to do so. Dr. Kirkpatrick is on record as stating that his method was developed for controlling populations of urban and suburban deer. He has never made the claim that it works equally well in all situations. Furthermore, Dr. Kirkpatrick is a professional wildlife biologist, not an anti-hunting animal rights ideologue. He has made it abundantly clear that he not opposed to hunting. To use him as a way to support your arguments without acknowledging these important factors is a form of intellectual dishonesty.

Quote:
"biologist do not yet completely understand all aspects of CWD" they really either have no idea about the disease and the danger or they do and they are downplaying because that would ruin it for the hunting industry.


Oh puhleeeeease! How utterly idiotic. If you are going to make a spurious claim to a conspiracy such as this, THEN PROVIDE SOME PROOF! Do you honestly expect readers to believe that highly respected scientific institutions such as the World Health Organization and the Center For Disease Control "have no idea about the disease" ( while you apparently seem to fancy yourself as having it ) or are in some kind of grand conspiracy with "the hunting industry"? Your credibility sinks even further.

Quote:
Here is 2 sites I had created for the subject ...


And your scientific credentials on the subject are what?

Quote:
because these are all diseases caused by prions so even though the death may not be listed as "CWD" in humans it can be considered CJD or early case of Alzheimer.


You are either grossly ignorant of this subject and are engaging is grossly irresponsible speculation, or you are simply a flat out liar. Neither is acceptable. There is no single confirmed case of human CJD or Alzheimer's Disease being caused by consumption of a CWD infected animal. That is a fact, madame. How about a little intellectual honesty for a change?[/quote]


Seems to me you are scared and don't want to hear the truth. Venison eaters have died.

"A National Institutes of
Health laboratory study has shown that CWD, like British mad cow disease,
can convert normal human prions into infected prions. Indeed we might have
already seen the first human deaths from mad deer disease. Three years ago
two young Western hunters, Doug McEwen and Jay Whitlock, came down with
so-called classic or sporadic CJD in their late twenties and died. In
1996 Kevin Boss, a Minnesotan who hunted there and in western Wisconsin,
died of CJD at age forty-one. Mary Reilly of Waupaca died not long ago of
CJD at age forty-three. These are a handful of young CJD deaths, but there
are more and they seem to be increasing. No one knows what CWD or other US
strains of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) would look like in
humans, but as in Britain they would possibly first appear as increasing
cases of classic CJD in people under fifty years of age.
Unfortunately, both the federal and state governments are badly bungling
this issue and falsely reassuring people that what happened in Britain could
never happen here. "


You cannot destroy prions that easily but I think I have told you that already.


Read this article on how deadly prions are destroyed. Prions are the same agent from in CJD, CWD , Mad cow and Mad deer disease

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479931/


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 9:25 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:23 pm
Posts: 246
Caroline says: "Venison eaters have died". Well, we all must die, of course - but I would like you to be a little more careful about tailoring what you read to bolster your opinion. And while an article in Salon may be entertaining and contain some truth, I am concerned with reasonable proof, and there appears to be no real proof that venison eaters have died with CJD clearly attributable to consumption of venison. Coincidences happen, and even in the case of mad cow disease the actual nr of cases of CJD clearly attributable to cross-species infection has been small, and numbers continue to be revised.

I did a search in PubMed for "chronic wasting diseases deer" and came up with a number of interesting articles about potential infection rates, possibilities of cross-infection of other species, and the role of hunting. I suggest you do the same. I also did a search for your champion, Patrick Bosque. Here is one of his most recent publications, with others, on the the possibility of human cervid CWD infection:

"Arch Neurol. 2007 Mar;64(3):439-41.
Colorado surveillance program for chronic wasting disease transmission to humans: lessons from 2 highly suspicious but negative cases.

Anderson CA, Bosque P, Filley CM, Arciniegas DB, Kleinschmidt-Demasters BK, Pape WJ, Tyler KL.

Department of Neurology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO 80262, USA. al.anderson@uchsc.edu

OBJECTIVE: To describe 2 patients with rapidly progressive dementia and risk factors for exposure to chronic wasting disease (CWD) in whom extensive testing negated the possible transmission of CWD. Design/ METHODS: We describe the evaluation of 2 young adults with initial exposure histories and clinical presentations that suggested the possibility of CWD transmission to humans. Patients A 52-year-old woman with possible laboratory exposure to CWD and a 25-year-old man who had consumed meat from a CWD endemic area. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical evaluation, neuropathological examination, and genetic testing. RESULTS: Neuropathological and genetic assessment in the 2 patients proved the diagnoses of early-onset Alzheimer disease and a rare genetic prion disease. CONCLUSION: No convincing cases of CWD transmission to humans have been detected in our surveillance program.

PMID: 17353391 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"

In other words, patients had early onset AD, a rare genetic disease, and a non-cervid prion disease - a rare combination but it does happen; this is not unlike some cases in the UK first mistakenly thought ot suffer form bovine prion diseaese

Here is another study (to add to the earlier one, in transgenic mice, that I cited, and which you seem to be ignoring) which also, like the transgenic mice study, suggests (as do other studies, look them up in PubMed) a major cross-species barrier to cervid CWD infection. Note also that in the following study, the most direct, experimental infection method was used, direct injection in the brain, as well as the oral route of infection:

"Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 Sep;15(9):1366-76.
Susceptibilities of nonhuman primates to chronic wasting disease.

Race B, Meade-White KD, Miller MW, Barbian KD, Rubenstein R, LaFauci G, Cervenakova L, Favara C, Gardner D, Long D, Parnell M, Striebel J, Priola SA, Ward A, Williams ES, Race R, Chesebro B.

Laboratory of Persistent Viral Diseases, Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Hamilton, Montana 59840, USA. raceb@niaid.nih.g

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, or prion disease, that affects deer, elk, and moose. Human susceptibility to CWD remains unproven despite likely exposure to CWD-infected cervids. We used 2 nonhuman primate species, cynomolgus macaques and squirrel monkeys, as human models for CWD susceptibility. CWD was inoculated into these 2 species by intracerebral and oral routes. After intracerebral inoculation of squirrel monkeys, 7 of 8 CWD isolates induced a clinical wasting syndrome within 33-53 months. The monkeys' brains showed spongiform encephalopathy and protease-resistant prion protein (PrPres) diagnostic of prion disease. After oral exposure, 2 squirrel monkeys had PrPres in brain, spleen, and lymph nodes at 69 months postinfection. In contrast, cynomolgus macaques have not shown evidence of clinical disease as of 70 months postinfection. Thus, these 2 species differed in susceptibility to CWD. Because humans are evolutionarily closer to macaques than to squirrel monkeys, they may also be resistant to CWD."

Overall, the articles suggest to me that while we do know that cross-species infections may occur susceptibility may differ considerably, and some species may not show development of disease after infection; even though a survival without symptoms of some six years in the macaques is not entirely conclusive, given their long life span. However, compared to the squirrel monkeys, the macaques do survive without symptoms for what in humans would be about twenty years. This does not mean that CWD is not a concern as a zoonosis but other papers suggest how we can tackle monitoring ang culling programs to reduce exposure of what already seems to be a very very small risk to humans even further.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 06, 2010 10:01 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Evening, Caroline. Nice you dropped by.

I'm at work, so I can't post links, but there might be one or two concerning Dr. Kirkpatrick I can get to tommorow. He's a interesting man. I found the fact that he's hunted and admits that deer birthcontrol has limits and that deer-hunting still has a important role(His view, note) in animal-population control very honest and open-minded.

I think Reeves has summed up things regarding you question very well: we've answered your question. It's simply doesn't seem to be the answer you wanted. As we used to say when I was in the army, "Sorry about that sh.....well, you get the idea... O:)

Your myface page is something, that I must admit. The 'sniper assault-weapon' article was a hoot....That much misdirection in so few words! Classic ARA......

Side note: What is the largest herd of deer on whom deer-birth control has been used?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 1:15 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:14 pm
Posts: 785
Location: In the woods near Evergreen, Colorado
"A National Institutes of
Health laboratory study has shown that CWD, like British mad cow disease,
can convert normal human prions into infected prions. Indeed we might have
already seen the first human deaths from mad deer disease. Three years ago
two young Western hunters, Doug McEwen and Jay Whitlock, came down with
so-called classic or sporadic CJD in their late twenties and died. In
1996 Kevin Boss, a Minnesotan who hunted there and in western Wisconsin,
died of CJD at age forty-one. Mary Reilly of Waupaca died not long ago of
CJD at age forty-three. These are a handful of young CJD deaths, but there
are more and they seem to be increasing. No one knows what CWD or other US
strains of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) would look like in
humans, but as in Britain they would possibly first appear as increasing
cases of classic CJD in people under fifty years of age.
Unfortunately, both the federal and state governments are badly bungling
this issue and falsely reassuring people that what happened in Britain could
never happen here. "


You cannot destroy prions that easily but I think I have told you that already.


Read this article on how deadly prions are destroyed. Prions are the same agent from in CJD, CWD , Mad cow and Mad deer disease

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5479931/[/quote]


Quote:
Indeed we might have
already seen the first human deaths from mad deer disease.


The astute reader will notice the very important word "might" in the statement quoted by Caroline. Caroline has failed once again to PROVE that CWD in any form is transmissible to humans. She insults the intelligence of readers of this board by thinking that we are dumb enough to believe her fear-mongering claims which have no basis in hard proof but are based purely in speculation as indicated by words like "might". Here is something very interesting. This is Caroline in an earlier post in this thread:

"One day thousands of innocent human from the pantries are going to die from CWD related illness where holes start to create in the brain....."

Notice that in this statement, Caroline uses the definitive term "are" as if this statement is fact. Now that that has been shown to be untrue, Caroline now references an article that uses the term "might". Nice attempt at an intellectual slight of hand, Caroline [-X but it doesn't wash. You are both a liar and an equivocator.

_________________
Vegetarian: Old Native American word meaning really bad hunter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 3:45 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:38 pm
Posts: 213
“I know what Jay Kirkpatrick is about but the fact is the hunting industry still lies about the effectiveness of IC deer birth control. Jay Kirkpatrick himself says this and I have already written this before of this forum but you all just countinue to ignore.”

I don’t think you do know what Dr. Kirkpatrick is about. He is saying that IC deer birth control is a viable management strategy for the deer that live near urban areas, where they pose a danger to residents and motorists and where it is unsafe to control deer population by hunting them. Dr. Kirkpatrick is not anti hunting. He doesn’t like it when people say contraception is the way to end sport hunting because it divides people and the valuable application and concept of IC deer birth control doesn’t get a change to be properly heard and discussed. I think that is why you perceive “the hunting industry still lies” about the effectiveness of deer contraception. Because rabid opponents of hunting use Kirkpatrick’s concept and studies of deer contraception as proof that sport hunting is unnecessary. So, understandably, sport hunters and wildlife management get all pissy about it. When, what Dr. Kirkpatrick is saying is that deer contraception is, so far, only a solution to discrete deer population of human-inhabited and more developed urban areas where those deer are causing “problems” (it’s not the deer’s fault, of course) because hunting as a tool for population management is unsafe or impermissible – but, Dr. K makes clear that IC birth control is not yet designed for the wider thousands of free-roaming deer. And, this, is what I mostly read from pro deer hunting sites. So, its not really lies what the hunting industry is saying, generally. They are saying what Dr. K is saying: IC birth fertility has limited application.

“Here is part of what Jay says in the video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aANcNyYbLpw

"I know that quiet a few "expert" has found their way into Pittsburg both from Agencies (hunting) and other academic institutions and primarily their message has been "this doesn't work"..umm its interersting that "expert witnesess" who paraded themselves thru Pittsburg who never themselves been involved in wildlife contraceptives projects of any scales and they have offered to you a varities of opinions and ideas, congectures and assumptions but they haven't given you any numbers, they haven't given you any datas..."

The stalling and criticizing of Dr. K’s studies by “expert” concerns about the reproductive biology/energetics and genetic effects of contraception (e.g., buck mating behaviour with extended breeding season, deer body fat in re extended rut and buck’s vigor/stored energy/resistance to illness and winter mortality concerns, fawn weight) and administration logistics and effects on deer stress are more regarding larger free-roaming deer (i.e. for sport hunting) rather than for the smaller herd of human-habituated urban/suburban deer that couldn’t be traditionally hunted anyway.

Again, when radical anti sport hunting sentiments warn that contraception will be “the means by which all sport hunting would be brought to its knees”, which is what has been happening, everybody just takes sides for or against the notion of IC birth control instead of looking at the science and data. Again, Dr. K’s FINS and NIST studies (per video) were to show that ***certain deer populations*** can be managed and effectively reduced by contraception. Battle lines are drawn between groups who exaggerate Dr. K’s studies and application of IC deer fertility as something that makes hunting obsolete and wildlife agencies with hunters who see contraception as a threat to sport hunting; while the science and data that seems to show contraception as an effective deer management tool in urban and suburban areas ***only*** gets lost in the squabbling.

“Dr. Jay Kirkpatrick is not Animal Right Activists he is a Wildlife Contraception expert and he is letting the public know that it works and works well. I am sure he does not want problem with the pro-kill government so he stays neutral but the fact is as Jay Kirkpatrick says "It works and it works well" and he also says "60% deer herd size reduction.””

Correct, Dr. K is not anti-hunting, either, and his studies should not be used by anti-hunters as some sort of proof that sport hunting is unnecessary. Yes, IC deer birth control does “work well” for ***certain, discrete urban deer populations***. As Dr. K says, per links I had given, it is not applicable for other larger free-roaming deer populations. IC birth control is not a means to ending sport hunting. It is one tool for a specifically limited number of deer in specific areas where hunting would be unsafe to the human populace near which the deer roam.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Feb 07, 2010 4:22 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:38 pm
Posts: 213
“As I recall no one here has answered my question as to where all the large deer herds are coming from and why the hunting industry are PRODUCING DEER if its about "reduction"?. Here is one beside a few other time I asked the same question and all I got from all of you is song and dance.”

Who ever said it was just about “reduction”? Annual mass killing of deer does “reduce” existing number of deer and it is the price paid for having quality habitat and healthy quality deer, which equals “increased” deer survivability and reproductive success of more fawn births. Reduction and increase in deer herds go together. Deer population is dynamic and fluctuating, not static, Caroline. So, hunting, like animal predation, in this sense, is never a one-time deal. Very simply, when animal predation occurs, the numbers go down, but the vacuum gets filled again (increase in deer), which means more deer to predate (deer reduction), and around it goes again. Deer just don’t have that built-in control mechanism that keep the populations of cyclic critters under control. Cyclic animals can attain a peak population density within a predictable period, after which the population is more or less abruptly self-thinned by a combination of factors as dispersion, decreased reproduction, etc., while not destroying their range before their populations are reduced. This is not so with deer, whose populations can only be kept under control by eliminating the annual increment, larger or smaller. This can’t be done by their natural and efficient predators (wolves and mountain lions), so the surplus must be harvested by a method of simulated predation – the most efficient so far, for larger, free-roaming deer, happens to be regulated sport hunting. We’ve learned what happens when predators are gone or too few (for human and livestock safety, not ‘cos of sport hunters) and hunting is banned, or very limited, from events on the Kaibab Plateau, South Fox Island off mainland Lake Michigan, the Llano Basin of the Edwards Plateau in central TX, Princeton Township in NJ, and other areas. The choice we have is quality deer and habitat (which means annual killings by hunters and wild meat to eat) or no hunting (and no or too little nonhuman animal predation) with weaker, malnourished deer whose does reabsorb their embryos and have stillborns, and fawn gender adjustments to reduce deer numbers enough to live off the available, but gradually degrading habitat.

These questions of yours have been answered. There was no intent to deceive and mislead in the answers. Your challenge to those answers has been limited and refuted, and it’s your turn to re-challenge. E.g.:

Grizzly: "- lack of natural top predators in many areas. Top predators would include species such as wolves, mountain lions, and grizzlies."

CarolineTC: “Are you reading what I have written? I don't think so because you know its the hunters killing deers natural predator and is encouraged."

Natural predators of deer, such as wolves and mountain lions, are not being killed by sport hunters to produce more deer. Killing of these predators were done long ago to protect human settlements and livestock. There was commercial hunting, which has nothing to do with modern sport hunting. When hunters are encouraged to kill predators it is more often because farmers want them to, or the public feel the predators have become too close for comfort.

Also, CarolineTC: "Varmints, specifically coyotes, are the biggest threats to fawn recruitment on most land throughout the United States. "Deer Management TX"

In what wildlife context was this said: Had there been a reduction in deer over the seasons, were there coyote scat analyses done, what about wildlife management use of hunting and its effect on deer numbers and fawn recruitment, had coyote hunting/trapping been used and had it made a difference on coyote numbers, what were hunters’ views on the issue, etc., etc? In 2003, in Maine there was a debate on coyote snaring for fawn recruitment. Deer were plentiful in southern and central ME, with an estimated 20 deer/square mile. Eastern and northern parts of the state, however, had just one-fifth that density. Sometimes, statements on their own don’t explain the reason behind them. Also, what one deer management agency says for its area may not pertain to or reflect the same opinion for deer management in another area. That includes not just coyotes but also things like deer baiting and feeding plots: Just because food plots are planted for one area's deer population doesn't mean it's done everywhere. One management's policies don't necessarily represent what consistently goes on for other management policies, though each policy may be used as a management tool under certain circumstances, and how those circumstances are interpreted by different management agencies and professional and hunter input may vary from area to area, state to state. So, what goes on in one area of TX doesn’t mean it goes on throughout that State, and what happens in one state doesn’t mean every other state is doing it as well.

I don't know the situation in TX, but in my state there is hunter and wildlife management difference in opinion on the issue of coyotes being threats to fawn recruitment. We’ve had open season for coyotes, but its hunters who are suggesting that the season be closed for the summer, during pup-rearing season.

Studies do show coyotes eat deer. Whether they kill many or not is questionable. An increase of deer hair in scat occurs during hunting season. This may be caused by wounded, unrecovered deer, and offal left in the woods by hunters, as well as road kills (DVAs). Yes, coyotes will go after deer they have a high probability of killing. They can take advantage of some deer when the snow is high and limits deer mobility. It’s known they also take some fawns in the spring. Coyote scat analyses have shown that in July-August there's a lot of deer hair, even hooves from the newborn fawns. Others argue that deer numbers can go up dramatically after easy winters (not just because of hunting) and they go down just as dramatically after harsh winters, irrespective of coyotes, so coyotes are one of several factors for fawn deaths/reduction in numbers. Moreover, research shows the more coyotes you kill, the bigger the litters get and the more you'll have. Some say one would have to kill in the region of 70% are killed annually to maintain a population check. So, random killing of coyotes simply causes more rapid reproduction would make no sense to kill coyotes. So, hunters would actually better protect fawns and deer by improving the quality and quantity of deer bedding, fawning and escape cover. This would also create better habitat for rabbits, mice and other animals that are preferred by coyotes. Increasing the coyotes’ food supply would do a better job at taking the pressure off of deer.

Better deer population management, too, can reduce fawn predation by coyotes. Again, by getting a more balanced buck-to-doe ratio in the herd, coyotes would kill less fawns: When deer gender ratios are closer to a balance of 1:1, deer breeding takes place over a narrower window and fawning will occur in the same narrow time span. Coyotes are overwhelmed, eating only what they can, and with fawning quickly over, a higher fawn recruitment is the result. This is the "satiation principle" (predators are overwhelmed with potential prey in such a manner that they cannot effectively consume all the fawns before the fawning season ends) and a defensive characteristic of ungulates.

Increased range of coyotes from west to east is because humans – not sport hunters specifically – cleared and fragmented the forest and killed off the gray wolf (coyotes' competitor). For us, the eastern coyote is a relative newcomer, arriving in numbers after WW II. Again, biologists generally agree that coyotes have the ability to self-limit their numbers (unlike deer) so they don’t overpopulate the land, though people may not want to tolerate them. In the time that coyotes have settled here, our deer numbers have fluctuated, but not because of coyotes, and up and down the East Coast, deer and coyote numbers are at a high. Despite the presence of coyotes, they don’t appear to be a limiting factor as wolves and mountain lions were in the 19th century.

Yes, there have been govt subsidised aerial shoots of coyotes as part of predator control programs, again to protect livestock mainly. But, they’ve been controversial and lots of people, including hunters, don’t want an all-out aerial war or open-/all-season hunting on coyotes. There’s been debate in my state on hunting derbies of coyotes, which many hunters oppose, others not. Otherwise, farmers will enroll the help of a local hunter to perform “target specific” control of shooting the one or two coyotes that have been killing calves or sheep (and they like house cats).

Grizzly: "- increase in intensely cultivated agricultural lands in the past century. Deer are attracted to crops like corn, soy beans, and the like as an easy food source."

CarolineTC: “Must have missed the food plot parts of my comments.”

Your comment still does nothing to negate the fact that deer are particularly attracted to agricultural crops, which (among other factors mentioned) have enabled them to thrive and increase in herd size.

Like the issue of coyotes, food plots have both their opponents and detractors among hunters and wild game management, in terms of when and if supplemental feeding is appropriate or inappropriate sometimes or all the time. So, don’t assume food plots are always generally practiced in every area. Btw, in context of your claim that hunters kill predators in order to reduce competition for deer and increase the number of deer, some argue that feeding plots can increase predation because it crowds deer into a smaller area with limited network of escape trails, needed to elude predators, and deer will bed near feeding stations. It's not uncommon for predation on deer to occur within sight of supplemental feeders. So, it seems contradictory to say that hunters kill deer's natural predators to produce or have more deer to kill for hunter enjoyment, and then hunters having feeding plots which attract predators, like coyotes and bobcats, and so deny hunters from taking shots at the deer.

Also, artificial feeding doesn’t necessarily mean the deer herd size is increased. It depends on the situation, when the feeding program begins, for how many deer and what is being planted as feed. E.g., if the winter is unusually severe, or when it becomes essential to preserve the nucleus of a deer herd rather than restocking them in the event they are wiped out. Also, energy food such as corn isn’t that nutritious and can reduce cellulose digestibility (available foods high in cellulose is what deer will eat in winter), and because lots of other smaller animals compete for the corn, the deer end up eating rather little of it. Supplemental feeding of protein and fat may be another matter.

Grizzly: “"- the expansion of the suburbs. Deer are attracted to vegetable gardens, flowers, bushes, certain tree species, etc. found in suburban yards. Many places that are now suburbs were once rural deer habitat, but the deer do not leave. This is especially true in the heavily populated east coast.
- in many areas where deer population is considered high, there are private lands that are closed to hunting"

CarolineTC: “What happens is deer seek refuge from gunshots and terrorist in the forest and that is why you find deer where there are no hunting. Hunters created large deer herd then start killing them each season and deer do not want to stay around where there is danger.”

The deer would still increase even if there were no hunting danger. The difference is that over time deer habitat would become so degraded that the deer may not survive because the land can’t restore itself because of deer’s habits. Because deer need to have their populations controlled via acute deaths, which can only come from nonhuman predators or a bullet/arrow and in combination with harsh winters. Embryo reabsorption, abortion and stillborns, or having single fawns vs twins and gender ratio adjustments won’t help control deer population in time.

While deer may seek refuge from gunshots and forest “terrorists,” they would thrive on posted land because there’s no predation or nobody to shoot them. That’s the answer (together with other factors mentioned) to your question as to why deer herds increase. Whether deer seek refuge or stay where the danger is, they don’t take their population census and don’t take vows of chastity – they continue to reproduce, whichever way, and more so when habitat is maintained in quality by hunting. As said, and which you may not fully grasp, being a species adapted to (and because their populations are largely controlled/’balanced’/kept in check by) predation, deer by biologic cannot maintain a relative stable population without predation/when predation is removed.

Grizzly: "- poorly thought-out deer hunting regulations/management that does not encourage the culling of enough females from the population. Many state wildlife agencies are now starting to realize that this is a factor and are adjusting their management strategies accordingly. " GB

CarolineTC: “again you did not read my comment clearly because it even talks about doe hunting to create more male fawn birth and its been "poorly thought-out" for very long time because they are not about long term deer herd reduction is that so hard for you to understand? What part of my comments did you miss?”

You don’t seem to get it. This is an issue of management policy for a particular area, which in no way proves that hunting is an ineffective management tool. Deer hunting management and regulation programs have to be constantly/seasonally readjusted. What works one season may not work the next season, because other (hunting and nonhunting) factors (e.g., weather and nonhunter-induced landscape changes that cannot always be predicted when planning hunting policies) affects seasonal and long-term deer population numbers and fawn gender ratio. The point of hunting as a management tool is not simply to keep deer numbers down, or to keep them up. Rather, it is the continuation of sustainable quality deer population that can survive within the limitations of their (quality) habitat.

Doe hunting to create more male fawn births is needed when there are a disproportionate number of females or too few males. Can’t you comprehend that? Buck harvests are indicators of population growth, I think. But, one doesn't want numbers of deer at the expense of habitat quality and, therefore, deer quality. Harvests must change from year to year, depending on both hunting and nonhunting factors. Again, the point is not increasing or reducing deer or certain gender of deer per se, but maintaining a healthy deer population (which can sometimes accommodate more male fawns for a season or two) – meaning also a healthy forest.

Grizzly: "- a declining number of hunters because of today's highly urbanized/suburbanized society"

Caroline: “More reason the time has come for using IC wildlife contraception.”

IC wildlife birth control can have an important place, with limited application in urban/suburban society’s deer. As discussed above.

As traditional sports hunters age and hunting tradition is passed on to ever fewer children who could replace hunters who drop out and die off, as well as people living farther from wildlife areas than in the past together with the influx of new people coming in that didn't grow up in a rural environment and weren't exposed to hunting, people spend more time indoors on computers and watching t.v., or outside at organised sports, and increasingly use public and private land for ‘nonconsumptive’ activities (hiking, walking, camping, wildlife viewing, e.g.)

The point is that there is a decline in the number of people being taught hunting or wanting to be hunters as a result of modern living/urbanisation/surburbanisation (in addition to other nonhunting factors mentioned), the deer have been able to increase in herd size – this was your original question, why deer herd have increased.

CarolineTC: "Again you did not read my comment about the "1,000 dollar a deer" lies from the hunting industry. …"

No lies from the hunting industry. You either jump to conclusions because of being blinded by hate, and/or you overlook what they mean by the "1,000 dollar a deer" remark. E.g., http://deeralliance.com/index.php?pageI ... ticleID=78: "In wild deer this tagging requires capturing and sedating each deer. So while the vaccine might cost as little as $10 a shot, the injection of the deer typically costs $500 to $1000 per shot." It seems quite clear what's being said: The vaccine may cost a few dollars a piece, but the labour costs on top of it increases the price per deer.

CarolineTC: "Overall Mr. Grizzly you have no answered much of my questions instead it was ignored because you have repeated that has already been refuted."

But, Grizzly has refuted. You've not challenged what's been said.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Feb 08, 2010 6:33 am 
Offline
Member with 50 posts!
Member with 50 posts!

Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 6:56 am
Posts: 53
Location: NL
Hi

Research The Sites That You Are Asked to Join

I am sorry to all those animal rights folks who come here for what I am about to say, but it is true and it is my experience that joining Anti-Hunting Coalition is not such a great thing.

I barely got a hello and got bombarded with messages to give money/donations, asking for this help and that help etc... it is not giving a good impression and will put people off staying. Where as I understand the need for funding etc - there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it.

This is not a good time financially for most people and all those type of messages are not going to go down well. The organisation is not doing itself any favours.

If I had the cash I would be spending it on animal rescue = first and foremost, my own animal rescue, secondly - animal rescue institutions who are struggling in this economic climate and if I had any extra then I would give to animal rights awareness. I rescue animals for free and out of my own pocket and cannot give more elsewhere right now.

CL


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 10:33 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:57 am
Posts: 5
CatLady wrote:
Hi

Research The Sites That You Are Asked to Join

I am sorry to all those animal rights folks who come here for what I am about to say, but it is true and it is my experience that joining Anti-Hunting Coalition is not such a great thing.

I barely got a hello and got bombarded with messages to give money/donations, asking for this help and that help etc... it is not giving a good impression and will put people off staying. Where as I understand the need for funding etc - there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it.

This is not a good time financially for most people and all those type of messages are not going to go down well. The organisation is not doing itself any favours.

If I had the cash I would be spending it on animal rescue = first and foremost, my own animal rescue, secondly - animal rescue institutions who are struggling in this economic climate and if I had any extra then I would give to animal rights awareness. I rescue animals for free and out of my own pocket and cannot give more elsewhere right now.

CL


It's not "bombarding with donation" we have a very short time to do this and it's extremely important to the sake of our wildlife. There is more to it that you do not fully understand but I do. This will be a 50 state tour and we are only grass roots organization. When Jason Miller fought for the deer in Shawnee Mission Park there were funds donated but most of the money came from himself and it's not easy when one has a family. GAHC is going to be one of the most important movement and there will be media involved , papers and the whole works. We need to bring attention to the plight of our wildlife for they are constantly ignored, if I had more money I give what ever I can but I don't. Even 10 dollars from one person would add up and if every person can donate even that it would help us. You believe animal rescue and so do I but how about our wildlife who suffer and die in silence? Who are totally ignored because the government can call it "sports" and lie to the public about "reducing population" and "reducing" Deer Vehicle Accidents when that is a lie. It's not only the wildlife that suffers as millions are left wounded and crippled each year and the fact that they die a horrible suffering death but how about human death from DVA or DVC (Deer Vehicle Collision). It's because of the hunting industry that the DVA's are rising. Human death is so that wildlife serial killers aka recreational hunters can enjoy destroying life for self gratification. Think about it. A human died tragically when a deer hit his vehicle then at the same time think of a hunters posing with their murdered deer that has blood coming from the mouth, the gray eyes of death. A human dies so that another lowlife killer of wildlife can have enough deer to kill and DNR can rake it their blood money. This is not only about wildlife its about human life destroyed. I have a child that drives and I worry for him because she lives in a heavily hunted state and every deer killing I tell her to be very careful not because of deer in rut only but mainly because the deer herd is abundance produced by the hunting industry and the hunters would be in the forest spooking the deer out of their homes with shotguns and even bowhunters trampling in the forest at night.

Sports hunting is a billion dollar industry where DNR, Fish and wildlife, Fish and Game, Sportsman Alliance etc needs Whitetails for they are the top blood money maker (70% of profie comes from the whitetails ). That is why they reject deer birth control even though its here and it's proven to work yet they ignore it and mislead the public about the great benefits of Deer Contraception. That will be another area GAHC will be discussing yes GAHC is extremely important because the animals have suffered enough and so has innocent humans. Anthony Marr the founder of GAHC cares about Mother Earth , Global Warming, and all wildlife. He has been beaten by hunters because he wanted to stop bear hunting but still he continues his fight.

Understand that animals are all sentient beings that deserve to be free from and death. Its not only reserved for cats and dogs but for ALL.

We are no peta or HSUS that takes your money to benefit themselves the money goes directly into helping our wildlife and not a DIME goes for ourselves. I am one of the member and if you only knew what goes back and forth between us, the fear, the hope, the work, it's a lot and emotionally draining.

PS. When the hunting organization make their blood money where do you think it goes to? It's not to benefit the non-hunting public but for themselves so they can create more land to propagate more games animals to kill.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:24 pm 
Offline
Member with 500 Posts!
Member with 500 Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 06, 2008 1:14 pm
Posts: 785
Location: In the woods near Evergreen, Colorado
CatLady wrote:
Hi

Research The Sites That You Are Asked to Join

I am sorry to all those animal rights folks who come here for what I am about to say, but it is true and it is my experience that joining Anti-Hunting Coalition is not such a great thing.

I barely got a hello and got bombarded with messages to give money/donations, asking for this help and that help etc... it is not giving a good impression and will put people off staying. Where as I understand the need for funding etc - there is a right way to do it and a wrong way to do it.

This is not a good time financially for most people and all those type of messages are not going to go down well. The organisation is not doing itself any favours.

If I had the cash I would be spending it on animal rescue = first and foremost, my own animal rescue, secondly - animal rescue institutions who are struggling in this economic climate and if I had any extra then I would give to animal rights awareness. I rescue animals for free and out of my own pocket and cannot give more elsewhere right now.

CL



Quote:
I barely got a hello and got bombarded with messages to give money/donations, asking for this help and that help etc...


Mr. Marr sounds an awful lot like a sleazy televangelist. :- I've always said AR is a lot like religion in a myriad of ways.

_________________
Vegetarian: Old Native American word meaning really bad hunter.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:17 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:57 am
Posts: 5
Cobie wrote:
Caroline says: "Venison eaters have died". Well, we all must die, of course - but I would like you to be a little more careful about tailoring what you read to bolster your opinion. And while an article in Salon may be entertaining and contain some truth, I am concerned with reasonable proof, and there appears to be no real proof that venison eaters have died with CJD clearly attributable to consumption of venison. Coincidences happen, and even in the case of mad cow disease the actual nr of cases of CJD clearly attributable to cross-species infection has been small, and numbers continue to be revised.

I did a search in PubMed for "chronic wasting diseases deer" and came up with a number of interesting articles about potential infection rates, possibilities of cross-infection of other species, and the role of hunting. I suggest you do the same. I also did a search for your champion, Patrick Bosque. Here is one of his most recent publications, with others, on the the possibility of human cervid CWD infection:

"Arch Neurol. 2007 Mar;64(3):439-41.
Colorado surveillance program for chronic wasting disease transmission to humans: lessons from 2 highly suspicious but negative cases.

Anderson CA, Bosque P, Filley CM, Arciniegas DB, Kleinschmidt-Demasters BK, Pape WJ, Tyler KL.

Department of Neurology, University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, Denver, CO 80262, USA. al.anderson@uchsc.edu

OBJECTIVE: To describe 2 patients with rapidly progressive dementia and risk factors for exposure to chronic wasting disease (CWD) in whom extensive testing negated the possible transmission of CWD. Design/ METHODS: We describe the evaluation of 2 young adults with initial exposure histories and clinical presentations that suggested the possibility of CWD transmission to humans. Patients A 52-year-old woman with possible laboratory exposure to CWD and a 25-year-old man who had consumed meat from a CWD endemic area. INTERVENTIONS: Clinical evaluation, neuropathological examination, and genetic testing. RESULTS: Neuropathological and genetic assessment in the 2 patients proved the diagnoses of early-onset Alzheimer disease and a rare genetic prion disease. CONCLUSION: No convincing cases of CWD transmission to humans have been detected in our surveillance program.

PMID: 17353391 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]"

In other words, patients had early onset AD, a rare genetic disease, and a non-cervid prion disease - a rare combination but it does happen; this is not unlike some cases in the UK first mistakenly thought ot suffer form bovine prion diseaese

Here is another study (to add to the earlier one, in transgenic mice, that I cited, and which you seem to be ignoring) which also, like the transgenic mice study, suggests (as do other studies, look them up in PubMed) a major cross-species barrier to cervid CWD infection. Note also that in the following study, the most direct, experimental infection method was used, direct injection in the brain, as well as the oral route of infection:

"Emerg Infect Dis. 2009 Sep;15(9):1366-76.
Susceptibilities of nonhuman primates to chronic wasting disease.

Race B, Meade-White KD, Miller MW, Barbian KD, Rubenstein R, LaFauci G, Cervenakova L, Favara C, Gardner D, Long D, Parnell M, Striebel J, Priola SA, Ward A, Williams ES, Race R, Chesebro B.

Laboratory of Persistent Viral Diseases, Rocky Mountain Laboratories, Hamilton, Montana 59840, USA. raceb@niaid.nih.g

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, or prion disease, that affects deer, elk, and moose. Human susceptibility to CWD remains unproven despite likely exposure to CWD-infected cervids. We used 2 nonhuman primate species, cynomolgus macaques and squirrel monkeys, as human models for CWD susceptibility. CWD was inoculated into these 2 species by intracerebral and oral routes. After intracerebral inoculation of squirrel monkeys, 7 of 8 CWD isolates induced a clinical wasting syndrome within 33-53 months. The monkeys' brains showed spongiform encephalopathy and protease-resistant prion protein (PrPres) diagnostic of prion disease. After oral exposure, 2 squirrel monkeys had PrPres in brain, spleen, and lymph nodes at 69 months postinfection. In contrast, cynomolgus macaques have not shown evidence of clinical disease as of 70 months postinfection. Thus, these 2 species differed in susceptibility to CWD. Because humans are evolutionarily closer to macaques than to squirrel monkeys, they may also be resistant to CWD."

Overall, the articles suggest to me that while we do know that cross-species infections may occur susceptibility may differ considerably, and some species may not show development of disease after infection; even though a survival without symptoms of some six years in the macaques is not entirely conclusive, given their long life span. However, compared to the squirrel monkeys, the macaques do survive without symptoms for what in humans would be about twenty years. This does not mean that CWD is not a concern as a zoonosis but other papers suggest how we can tackle monitoring ang culling programs to reduce exposure of what already seems to be a very very small risk to humans even further.





You think our Government is going to be honest about Mad Deer Disease and Prions? Deer hunting is worth billions and they cannot afford to have public fear. The pantries would definitely stop taking the carcass that is "given" to them (of course hunters do not want to risk eating them).

"These are especially scary diseases to us people, because they arise from
something you can eat, and they affect the brain, and they are uniformly
fatal," says Edward Hoover, director of Colorado State University's
Retrovirus and Prion Research Laboratory.

At the same time, the CDC acknowledged several puzzling cases of patients
who died of neurological diseases after eating wild game. In 2003, doctors
at the VA Hospital in Seattle reported Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in three
hunters; the CDC would not investigate, saying there was no evidence the men
ate tainted meat. A 2002 study documented three Wisconsin men who regularly
ate venison and took part in large "game feasts"; two were diagnosed with
CJD and one was diagnosed with Pick's disease, a form of dementia.

"While wildlife agencies play down any danger, they also provide stark
warnings not to eat animal parts considered to be at highest risk, such as
the brain and nervous tissue. Many suggest that meat from an infected animal
not be eaten at all.
"It's kind of a mixed message," says Jim Woodward, a Wellington, Colo.,
activist who opposes the state's approach. "They seem to be comfortable in
making some extremely definitive statements that humans aren't going get
this disease. And that's exactly what happened in England in the 1980s," in
the early days of mad cow."



http://www.maddeer.org/madmadmad.html

What the government isn't telling you about mad deer disease.

"Prion diseases are so awful and the proteins so unpredictable that scientists take extraordinary precautions against infection when studying them in the lab. Patrick Bosque, a neurologist at the University of Colorado in Denver, studied prions in hamsters and mice, which do not appear to be transmissible to people. Yet he routinely wore disposable gloves, shoe covers and a gown, and avoided carrying his lab notebook or other potentially contaminated material out of the lab. Whenever he conducted a procedure that might spray or splash prions, he worked in a special hood to shield his face and upper arms. "Then you're going to tell me I'm going to eat deer?" Bosque asked. "I definitely would not eat deer I thought had been infected."

Bosque believes no one knows enough about CWD -- more commonly known as mad deer -- to say that eating venison is safe. "If it was very transmissible, we'd know it," he says. "But if it was somewhat transmissible, like BSE [bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or mad cow] in England, it would be hard to know."

http://dir.salon.com/story/mwt/feature/ ... index.html


If it was so "safe" why are lab workers wearing such protective clothing?

http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr18 ... x34113.jpg

http://i482.photobucket.com/albums/rr18 ... x34112.jpg

"We have to be careful about concluding that it hasn't happened," says Hoover.
"Unfortunately, both the federal and state governments are badly bungling this issue and falsely reassuring people that what happened in Britain could never happen here. The Centers for Disease Control should have made all cases of human CJD reportable to monitor the true number, but in 1999 refused to do so. "


http://www.myspace.com/maddeer1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Feb 11, 2010 10:54 pm 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:57 am
Posts: 5
Reeves wrote:
“As I recall no one here has answered my question as to where all the large deer herds are coming from and why the hunting industry are PRODUCING DEER if its about "reduction"?. Here is one beside a few other time I asked the same question and all I got from all of you is song and dance.”

Who ever said it was just about “reduction”? Annual mass killing of deer does “reduce” existing number of deer and it is the price paid for having quality habitat and healthy quality deer, which equals “increased” deer survivability and reproductive success of more fawn births. Reduction and increase in deer herds go together. Deer population is dynamic and fluctuating, not static, Caroline. So, hunting, like animal predation, in this sense, is never a one-time deal. Very simply, when animal predation occurs, the numbers go down, but the vacuum gets filled again (increase in deer), which means more deer to predate (deer reduction), and around it goes again. Deer just don’t have that built-in control mechanism that keep the populations of cyclic critters under control. Cyclic animals can attain a peak population density within a predictable period, after which the population is more or less abruptly self-thinned by a combination of factors as dispersion, decreased reproduction, etc., while not destroying their range before their populations are reduced. This is not so with deer, whose populations can only be kept under control by eliminating the annual increment, larger or smaller. This can’t be done by their natural and efficient predators (wolves and mountain lions), so the surplus must be harvested by a method of simulated predation – the most efficient so far, for larger, free-roaming deer, happens to be regulated sport hunting. We’ve learned what happens when predators are gone or too few (for human and livestock safety, not ‘cos of sport hunters) and hunting is banned, or very limited, from events on the Kaibab Plateau, South Fox Island off mainland Lake Michigan, the Llano Basin of the Edwards Plateau in central TX, Princeton Township in NJ, and other areas. The choice we have is quality deer and habitat (which means annual killings by hunters and wild meat to eat) or no hunting (and no or too little nonhuman animal predation) with weaker, malnourished deer whose does reabsorb their embryos and have stillborns, and fawn gender adjustments to reduce deer numbers enough to live off the available, but gradually degrading habitat.

These questions of yours have been answered. There was no intent to deceive and mislead in the answers. Your challenge to those answers has been limited and refuted, and it’s your turn to re-challenge. E.g.:

Grizzly: "- lack of natural top predators in many areas. Top predators would include species such as wolves, mountain lions, and grizzlies."

CarolineTC: “Are you reading what I have written? I don't think so because you know its the hunters killing deers natural predator and is encouraged."

Natural predators of deer, such as wolves and mountain lions, are not being killed by sport hunters to produce more deer. Killing of these predators were done long ago to protect human settlements and livestock. There was commercial hunting, which has nothing to do with modern sport hunting. When hunters are encouraged to kill predators it is more often because farmers want them to, or the public feel the predators have become too close for comfort.

Also, CarolineTC: "Varmints, specifically coyotes, are the biggest threats to fawn recruitment on most land throughout the United States. "Deer Management TX"

In what wildlife context was this said: Had there been a reduction in deer over the seasons, were there coyote scat analyses done, what about wildlife management use of hunting and its effect on deer numbers and fawn recruitment, had coyote hunting/trapping been used and had it made a difference on coyote numbers, what were hunters’ views on the issue, etc., etc? In 2003, in Maine there was a debate on coyote snaring for fawn recruitment. Deer were plentiful in southern and central ME, with an estimated 20 deer/square mile. Eastern and northern parts of the state, however, had just one-fifth that density. Sometimes, statements on their own don’t explain the reason behind them. Also, what one deer management agency says for its area may not pertain to or reflect the same opinion for deer management in another area. That includes not just coyotes but also things like deer baiting and feeding plots: Just because food plots are planted for one area's deer population doesn't mean it's done everywhere. One management's policies don't necessarily represent what consistently goes on for other management policies, though each policy may be used as a management tool under certain circumstances, and how those circumstances are interpreted by different management agencies and professional and hunter input may vary from area to area, state to state. So, what goes on in one area of TX doesn’t mean it goes on throughout that State, and what happens in one state doesn’t mean every other state is doing it as well.

I don't know the situation in TX, but in my state there is hunter and wildlife management difference in opinion on the issue of coyotes being threats to fawn recruitment. We’ve had open season for coyotes, but its hunters who are suggesting that the season be closed for the summer, during pup-rearing season.

Studies do show coyotes eat deer. Whether they kill many or not is questionable. An increase of deer hair in scat occurs during hunting season. This may be caused by wounded, unrecovered deer, and offal left in the woods by hunters, as well as road kills (DVAs). Yes, coyotes will go after deer they have a high probability of killing. They can take advantage of some deer when the snow is high and limits deer mobility. It’s known they also take some fawns in the spring. Coyote scat analyses have shown that in July-August there's a lot of deer hair, even hooves from the newborn fawns. Others argue that deer numbers can go up dramatically after easy winters (not just because of hunting) and they go down just as dramatically after harsh winters, irrespective of coyotes, so coyotes are one of several factors for fawn deaths/reduction in numbers. Moreover, research shows the more coyotes you kill, the bigger the litters get and the more you'll have. Some say one would have to kill in the region of 70% are killed annually to maintain a population check. So, random killing of coyotes simply causes more rapid reproduction would make no sense to kill coyotes. So, hunters would actually better protect fawns and deer by improving the quality and quantity of deer bedding, fawning and escape cover. This would also create better habitat for rabbits, mice and other animals that are preferred by coyotes. Increasing the coyotes’ food supply would do a better job at taking the pressure off of deer.

Better deer population management, too, can reduce fawn predation by coyotes. Again, by getting a more balanced buck-to-doe ratio in the herd, coyotes would kill less fawns: When deer gender ratios are closer to a balance of 1:1, deer breeding takes place over a narrower window and fawning will occur in the same narrow time span. Coyotes are overwhelmed, eating only what they can, and with fawning quickly over, a higher fawn recruitment is the result. This is the "satiation principle" (predators are overwhelmed with potential prey in such a manner that they cannot effectively consume all the fawns before the fawning season ends) and a defensive characteristic of ungulates.

Increased range of coyotes from west to east is because humans – not sport hunters specifically – cleared and fragmented the forest and killed off the gray wolf (coyotes' competitor). For us, the eastern coyote is a relative newcomer, arriving in numbers after WW II. Again, biologists generally agree that coyotes have the ability to self-limit their numbers (unlike deer) so they don’t overpopulate the land, though people may not want to tolerate them. In the time that coyotes have settled here, our deer numbers have fluctuated, but not because of coyotes, and up and down the East Coast, deer and coyote numbers are at a high. Despite the presence of coyotes, they don’t appear to be a limiting factor as wolves and mountain lions were in the 19th century.

Yes, there have been govt subsidised aerial shoots of coyotes as part of predator control programs, again to protect livestock mainly. But, they’ve been controversial and lots of people, including hunters, don’t want an all-out aerial war or open-/all-season hunting on coyotes. There’s been debate in my state on hunting derbies of coyotes, which many hunters oppose, others not. Otherwise, farmers will enroll the help of a local hunter to perform “target specific” control of shooting the one or two coyotes that have been killing calves or sheep (and they like house cats).

Grizzly: "- increase in intensely cultivated agricultural lands in the past century. Deer are attracted to crops like corn, soy beans, and the like as an easy food source."

CarolineTC: “Must have missed the food plot parts of my comments.”

Your comment still does nothing to negate the fact that deer are particularly attracted to agricultural crops, which (among other factors mentioned) have enabled them to thrive and increase in herd size.

Like the issue of coyotes, food plots have both their opponents and detractors among hunters and wild game management, in terms of when and if supplemental feeding is appropriate or inappropriate sometimes or all the time. So, don’t assume food plots are always generally practiced in every area. Btw, in context of your claim that hunters kill predators in order to reduce competition for deer and increase the number of deer, some argue that feeding plots can increase predation because it crowds deer into a smaller area with limited network of escape trails, needed to elude predators, and deer will bed near feeding stations. It's not uncommon for predation on deer to occur within sight of supplemental feeders. So, it seems contradictory to say that hunters kill deer's natural predators to produce or have more deer to kill for hunter enjoyment, and then hunters having feeding plots which attract predators, like coyotes and bobcats, and so deny hunters from taking shots at the deer.

Also, artificial feeding doesn’t necessarily mean the deer herd size is increased. It depends on the situation, when the feeding program begins, for how many deer and what is being planted as feed. E.g., if the winter is unusually severe, or when it becomes essential to preserve the nucleus of a deer herd rather than restocking them in the event they are wiped out. Also, energy food such as corn isn’t that nutritious and can reduce cellulose digestibility (available foods high in cellulose is what deer will eat in winter), and because lots of other smaller animals compete for the corn, the deer end up eating rather little of it. Supplemental feeding of protein and fat may be another matter.

Grizzly: “"- the expansion of the suburbs. Deer are attracted to vegetable gardens, flowers, bushes, certain tree species, etc. found in suburban yards. Many places that are now suburbs were once rural deer habitat, but the deer do not leave. This is especially true in the heavily populated east coast.
- in many areas where deer population is considered high, there are private lands that are closed to hunting"

CarolineTC: “What happens is deer seek refuge from gunshots and terrorist in the forest and that is why you find deer where there are no hunting. Hunters created large deer herd then start killing them each season and deer do not want to stay around where there is danger.”

The deer would still increase even if there were no hunting danger. The difference is that over time deer habitat would become so degraded that the deer may not survive because the land can’t restore itself because of deer’s habits. Because deer need to have their populations controlled via acute deaths, which can only come from nonhuman predators or a bullet/arrow and in combination with harsh winters. Embryo reabsorption, abortion and stillborns, or having single fawns vs twins and gender ratio adjustments won’t help control deer population in time.

While deer may seek refuge from gunshots and forest “terrorists,” they would thrive on posted land because there’s no predation or nobody to shoot them. That’s the answer (together with other factors mentioned) to your question as to why deer herds increase. Whether deer seek refuge or stay where the danger is, they don’t take their population census and don’t take vows of chastity – they continue to reproduce, whichever way, and more so when habitat is maintained in quality by hunting. As said, and which you may not fully grasp, being a species adapted to (and because their populations are largely controlled/’balanced’/kept in check by) predation, deer by biologic cannot maintain a relative stable population without predation/when predation is removed.

Grizzly: "- poorly thought-out deer hunting regulations/management that does not encourage the culling of enough females from the population. Many state wildlife agencies are now starting to realize that this is a factor and are adjusting their management strategies accordingly. " GB

CarolineTC: “again you did not read my comment clearly because it even talks about doe hunting to create more male fawn birth and its been "poorly thought-out" for very long time because they are not about long term deer herd reduction is that so hard for you to understand? What part of my comments did you miss?”

You don’t seem to get it. This is an issue of management policy for a particular area, which in no way proves that hunting is an ineffective management tool. Deer hunting management and regulation programs have to be constantly/seasonally readjusted. What works one season may not work the next season, because other (hunting and nonhunting) factors (e.g., weather and nonhunter-induced landscape changes that cannot always be predicted when planning hunting policies) affects seasonal and long-term deer population numbers and fawn gender ratio. The point of hunting as a management tool is not simply to keep deer numbers down, or to keep them up. Rather, it is the continuation of sustainable quality deer population that can survive within the limitations of their (quality) habitat.

Doe hunting to create more male fawn births is needed when there are a disproportionate number of females or too few males. Can’t you comprehend that? Buck harvests are indicators of population growth, I think. But, one doesn't want numbers of deer at the expense of habitat quality and, therefore, deer quality. Harvests must change from year to year, depending on both hunting and nonhunting factors. Again, the point is not increasing or reducing deer or certain gender of deer per se, but maintaining a healthy deer population (which can sometimes accommodate more male fawns for a season or two) – meaning also a healthy forest.

Grizzly: "- a declining number of hunters because of today's highly urbanized/suburbanized society"

Caroline: “More reason the time has come for using IC wildlife contraception.”

IC wildlife birth control can have an important place, with limited application in urban/suburban society’s deer. As discussed above.

As traditional sports hunters age and hunting tradition is passed on to ever fewer children who could replace hunters who drop out and die off, as well as people living farther from wildlife areas than in the past together with the influx of new people coming in that didn't grow up in a rural environment and weren't exposed to hunting, people spend more time indoors on computers and watching t.v., or outside at organised sports, and increasingly use public and private land for ‘nonconsumptive’ activities (hiking, walking, camping, wildlife viewing, e.g.)

The point is that there is a decline in the number of people being taught hunting or wanting to be hunters as a result of modern living/urbanisation/surburbanisation (in addition to other nonhunting factors mentioned), the deer have been able to increase in herd size – this was your original question, why deer herd have increased.

CarolineTC: "Again you did not read my comment about the "1,000 dollar a deer" lies from the hunting industry. …"

No lies from the hunting industry. You either jump to conclusions because of being blinded by hate, and/or you overlook what they mean by the "1,000 dollar a deer" remark. E.g., http://deeralliance.com/index.php?pageI ... ticleID=78: "In wild deer this tagging requires capturing and sedating each deer. So while the vaccine might cost as little as $10 a shot, the injection of the deer typically costs $500 to $1000 per shot." It seems quite clear what's being said: The vaccine may cost a few dollars a piece, but the labour costs on top of it increases the price per deer.

CarolineTC: "Overall Mr. Grizzly you have no answered much of my questions instead it was ignored because you have repeated that has already been refuted."

But, Grizzly has refuted. You've not challenged what's been said.



There you go again with a bunch pointless rambling you cannot give me a straight answer and you are using "Deer Alliance" website which is pro-hunting.


Here is the first time I asked the question about Hunting Agencies producing deer yet no one can give me a straight answer as to why they are ADDING deer plus they know about CRE (Compensatory Rebound Effect) and they use it to their advantage.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12320&start=120


I want every to read what other hunters and pro-kill advocate here has "replied". Not one has given me the reason why pro-kill Agencies uses the words "produce" , "provide (deer)", "fawn crops", "fawn recruits", "kill predators", "food plots", "supplement feeding" "restoration (deer)....if its all about "reduction" of deer herd thus "reducing" Deer Vehicle Accident and Deer Human Conflicts. So the DNR tells the public that hunting will "reduce" deer population but you see it from QDM (which many hunting organization uses) and other "deer management" talking about adding deer.

Here it's on my blogger too

http://mathew5-7.blogspot.com/2009/08/t ... -deer.html

"Some people disagree with shooting antlerless deer; they reason that protecting them -- thus maintaining a maximum breeding base -- will assure large numbers of antlered bucks because terrific numbers of deer will be born each year and button bucks wouldn't be harvested. "PA. Game Commission

Another thing is NJ added 5 more parks to kill deer with bowhunters in Morris County. That is now 18 parks in Morris County alone and plus they added Sundays yet all those killing after killing DVA's has gone up 54% in NJ

http://www.hnva.net/ADMNJ.html

Yes that is an ARA website but its the reason why we always have deer overpopulation because Fish and Wildlife in NJ and DNR caters to the killers aka sports hunters and of course they want their blood money. It works pretty much the same in most heavily hunted state where DNR are run by hunters and those opposed to killing innocent deer are ignored. That is why we want fight for no-hunters to have equal say so for our wildlife like the people in Wisconsin are doing right now.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Help-W ... ife-Lovers

And we want to do it in NJ and hopefully other states will follow. Why should only the pro-kill people have power to always be able to choose killing when many of us do not want it knowing full well it does not work, its cruel, its dangerous, and hunting for deer "reduction" is a lie.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:19 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 4:38 pm
Posts: 213
“There you go again with a bunch pointless rambling you cannot give me a straight answer and you are using "Deer Alliance" website which is pro-hunting.”

I have given as straight an answer as possible. If they are "pointless ramblings" simply because you cannot challenge the points made, I do not apologise. And, I used the Deer Alliance website because you said the hunting industry was lying about the 1000.00 dollar a deer price tag. I was showing you that pro-hunting does not lie. Pro-hunting says while the vaccine may cost a few dollars, the labour increases the price per deer. Hopefully, now you get it why I would use a pro-hunting website.

“Here is the first time I asked the question about Hunting Agencies producing deer yet no one can give me a straight answer as to why they are ADDING deer plus they know about CRE (Compensatory Rebound Effect) and they use it to their advantage.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12320&start=120

I want every to read what other hunters and pro-kill advocate here has "replied". Not one has given me the reason why pro-kill Agencies uses the words "produce" , "provide (deer)", "fawn crops", "fawn recruits", "kill predators", "food plots", "supplement feeding" "restoration (deer)....if its all about "reduction" of deer herd thus "reducing" Deer Vehicle Accident and Deer Human Conflicts. So the DNR tells the public that hunting will "reduce" deer population but you see it from QDM (which many hunting organization uses) and other "deer management" talking about adding deer.”


Terms such as “provide deer”, “fawn crops”, “fawn recruitment”, “deer restoration”, “food plots,” “supplemental feeding” etc. (some of the terms do imply reducing deer and/or increasing deer) need to be put into context of deer management. That is, in context of a particular deer population, in a particular area at a particular time, e.g.

As said, for example, supplemental feeding can be had in a particular area where deer are so low; so, not everywhere does game management allow supplemental feeding; and you will find both supporters and detractors among game management and hunting people regarding supplemental feeding. You may, indeed, be right in that supplemental feeding is done to increase deer survival for more deer to hunt next season. So what? So long as deer and habitat ratio and so quality are maintained, which is the main purpose.

As said, again, not having commensurate antlerless deer can actually harm a future quality breeding base and quality of antlered bucks. But, again, the numbers of bucks can, indeed, increase when there’s no antlerless deer hunts. But, that’s fine so long as deer and habitat quality are maintained.

Again, with regard to DVA increase, there can be other reasons besides hunting that contribute to deer-car collisions. Some reasons have been mentioned: it can be that deer can be within normal bio carrying capacity but there are just too many humans, too many roads and/or vehicles; DVAs increase during the rut and daylight hour changes when clocks change when human traffic is at its height when deer move during darker hours.

You don’t seem to understand deer population dynamics and fluctuations and the concept that nonhunting factors can also contribute to deer population increases, and the notion that hunting strategies change season to season to accommodate predictable and unpredictable changes in deer populations. That’s why deer management agencies use terms and strategies that “provide deer”, “fawn recruits”, “restoration” as well as “reduction,” “fawn crops,” etc. Hunting is about both reducing and adding deer, with the aim of maintaining deer-habitat health and quality.

Deer management's aims are to promote healthy deer herds that are in balance with the habitat, to have bucks and does in all age classes, and to have a balanced ratio of bucks to does. To achieve a viable deer-habitat ratio with balanced age structure and distribution and balanced gender ratio different strategies are used: e.g., banning shooting spikehorn bucks, implementing doe hunting, bag limits, hunting season type (rifle, bow, muzzleloader) and length, permitting/limiting/banning feeding plots and/or supplemental feedings where/when/what, land-access policies, etc., etc. The by-products of these different strategies used for quality (not just quantity) deer management are fluctuations (because hunting strategies change with hunting seasons depending on different factors, some predictable/preventable/manipulable, some not, and some factors about deer behaviour and population dynamics that are controllable, through various hunting strategies, over time, not just at one hunt) in reduction, increased production, more older bucks (which does not mean that management strategies are foremost trophy-driven), etc., etc.

That’s why in the Quality Deer Management Association Whitetail Report different US states earn kudos or not for quality, rather than quantity (which is important not on its own but in context and as it relates to a balanced deer number to available habitat for food and cover ratio) of deer. My State was actually known for having one of the densest deer herds in the country. Density was due to different factors, including very few predators (removed to protect people, their homesteads and livestock), but which resulted in deer thriving. Over time, with no effective predation to immediately control incremental surpluses of deer, more deer continued to live longer than usual, but struggled as more competed with less available habitat for nutrition, and many deer began to starve as their habitat was over-browsed. (There were other factors like forest growth over a century on farmland abandoned in the 1800s, thus creating more habitat for deer, and also increasing suburbia dividing some land and where there are fewer predators and hunting banned or limited – all mentioned before and you don’t challenge). My state no longer has the number of deer it used to have, largely because of the way regulated hunting was used as a tool for deer herd management. Deer size was adjusted (actually reduced over time) in accordance with local biological and/or social needs. Deer sizes still fluctuate, sometimes to where there are more deer than there should be in a parcel of land, of course (an unpredictably mild winter and/or another shopping plaza with surrounding housing development created on once deer habitat, e.g.), but overall deer herd size have drastically **reduced** from what they were and deer no longer cause the damage they do and their health no longer so negatively impacted when they were able to reproduce beyond available habitat.

There's no doubt that deer management is intended to also provide a **sustained yield** (rather than just adding) of deer for consumption by licensed hunters. Again, what of it? The biology and population dynamics of deer remains: Deer are prey animals adapted to predation (nonhuman animal and, when you look at pre-colonial history, human predation pressure as well) pressures, i.e., being killed and eaten; hence the deer's enormous capacity to reproduce even with 'normal' nonhuman predation before human encroachment. That predator factor is gone because of human activity (not sport hunting activity, but human population growth, human colonisation and land-use practices). Some form of immediate killing (predation) must simulate animal predation that could control deer size so that the rest can be matched to and survive in available habitat and its restoring capacity.

“ … DNR are run by hunters and those opposed to killing innocent deer are ignored. That is why we want fight for no-hunters to have equal say so for our wildlife like the people in Wisconsin are doing right now.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Help-W ... ife-Lovers

And we want to do it in NJ and hopefully other states will follow. Why should only the pro-kill people have power to always be able to choose killing when many of us do not want it knowing full well it does not work, its cruel, its dangerous, and hunting for deer "reduction" is a lie."

DNR may be run by hunters (I don't really know) perhaps in part because hunting has so far proven to be the most effective management tool, biologically, ecologically, economically, logistically, etc., to simulate predation, which is one of the most important mechanisms for deer population control. A predation vacuum occurred, not because of hunting, but because … you know, it’s already been explained for you in posts past. The science is already there, Caroline, of what happens when we leave deer to nonhuman Nature’s course. Your opinion that killing/hunting does not work is not true. I’ve also given you an example of my State where “reduction” was the overall result. Some so-called ‘hunting’ is undoubtedly cruel, but that’s not really “hunting”; its slob hunting or unethical hunting. Sometimes, it is just a horrible accident. Lots of things are dangerous (me cycling on the main roads for my work meetings is bloody dangerous I can assure you). Hunting is not as dangerous as other sports and activities. Also, hunters have paid. And, guess what, the majority of the US population who also pay are not against hunting (even though most do not hunt). I believe we enjoy seeing healthy rural deer because of hunting. I’d prefer to see well nourished deer even though it sad for me to know there will be individual deer, together known as mere ‘surplus’ , will be killed by hunting, rather than no hunting but fewer unhealthy rural deer struggling in degrading habitat and other animals struggling because of deer feeding and population behaviour and that habitat-animals may not exist in the future. But, that’s just me. IC fertility control is not a viable alternative for controlling larger, free-roaming rural wild deer. Anyhoo, anyone can contribute in land acquisition for nonconsumptive (nonhunting) use, contribute to nongame refuge systems, education, volunteer and research, etc. I know we have had public meetings in my community in re hunting or no hunting. Hunters haven’t always won, and sometimes there are differences of opinion and interpretation of science even within the pro-hunting and professional community. It’s often a matter of making a case based on science and rationality, and respecting and balancing/compromising differing opinions.

As far as fighting for no-hunters, you have not gone about it in a respectful and truthful way on this discussion forum, when you misuse Dr. Kirkpatrick’s studies on IC deer fertility control of discrete human-habituated urban/suburban deer as proof that sport hunting of other rural wild free-roaming deer is not needed. It’s not about pro-kill people having the power to chose what happens to deer. It’s about the misuse of science and research studies and misuse of public opinion poles and studies by “AR” advocates. That is my opinion.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 4:23 pm 
Offline
Member with over 1000 posts!
Member with over 1000 posts!

Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2007 5:17 am
Posts: 9576
Afternoon, Caroline!

You covered a lot of ground we've been over before, and it looks like we'll just have to agree to disagree. I'm a bit baffled with your objections to Catlady's observations.

She's not the only one who's noted the whole fund-raising aspects that are pushed into the faces of those poking about this GAHC. On your own page, one doesn't have to page down too far before the whole 'pay-pal' thing creeps into view(Complete with inscructions). There are honest and important ventures and organizations that require funds but when the appearance is of "money is the important thing with us", people begin to wonder.

My lady friend says she can always tell whether if a given church is worth visiting: where is the offerings box? If it's the first thing she see's when walking in, she walks back out.

Perhaps Catlady is getting the same vibe.

PS: Any word back on the largest deer herd controlled by birth control? Just how big is it?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Feb 12, 2010 11:49 pm 
Offline
Member with 200 posts
Member with 200 posts

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 9:23 pm
Posts: 246
CarolineT:
You sound like a broken record, to use an old-fashioned expression. You have not addressed any of the points I raised about there being no really good evidence that CWD is infectious to humans. Where I have given you a number of clear references to papers published in reviewed journals, including a paper co-auhtored by Patrick Bosque, you keep trotting out the same articles in popular websites, articles which do not even indicate they have really bothered to check their facts. As for someone wearing protective gear in an infectious diseases laboratory, your remark of "why would they do this if CWD were not infectious" is laughable and shows your lack of understanding of such research. Infection works both ways - what you have in front of you on the bench may infect you (although, if you look, CWD seems less of a risk than say, a culture of tuberculosis bacilli) but you can infect it thus undoing all the good work. Now I suggest that you try and concentrate on what you think are real reasons not to hunt deer and admit CWD is not one.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Feb 13, 2010 2:12 am 
Offline
New User
New User

Joined: Tue Feb 09, 2010 8:57 am
Posts: 5
Reeves wrote:
“There you go again with a bunch pointless rambling you cannot give me a straight answer and you are using "Deer Alliance" website which is pro-hunting.”

I have given as straight an answer as possible. If they are "pointless ramblings" simply because you cannot challenge the points made, I do not apologise. And, I used the Deer Alliance website because you said the hunting industry was lying about the 1000.00 dollar a deer price tag. I was showing you that pro-hunting does not lie. Pro-hunting says while the vaccine may cost a few dollars, the labour increases the price per deer. Hopefully, now you get it why I would use a pro-hunting website.

“Here is the first time I asked the question about Hunting Agencies producing deer yet no one can give me a straight answer as to why they are ADDING deer plus they know about CRE (Compensatory Rebound Effect) and they use it to their advantage.

viewtopic.php?f=4&t=12320&start=120

I want every to read what other hunters and pro-kill advocate here has "replied". Not one has given me the reason why pro-kill Agencies uses the words "produce" , "provide (deer)", "fawn crops", "fawn recruits", "kill predators", "food plots", "supplement feeding" "restoration (deer)....if its all about "reduction" of deer herd thus "reducing" Deer Vehicle Accident and Deer Human Conflicts. So the DNR tells the public that hunting will "reduce" deer population but you see it from QDM (which many hunting organization uses) and other "deer management" talking about adding deer.”


Terms such as “provide deer”, “fawn crops”, “fawn recruitment”, “deer restoration”, “food plots,” “supplemental feeding” etc. (some of the terms do imply reducing deer and/or increasing deer) need to be put into context of deer management. That is, in context of a particular deer population, in a particular area at a particular time, e.g.

As said, for example, supplemental feeding can be had in a particular area where deer are so low; so, not everywhere does game management allow supplemental feeding; and you will find both supporters and detractors among game management and hunting people regarding supplemental feeding. You may, indeed, be right in that supplemental feeding is done to increase deer survival for more deer to hunt next season. So what? So long as deer and habitat ratio and so quality are maintained, which is the main purpose.

As said, again, not having commensurate antlerless deer can actually harm a future quality breeding base and quality of antlered bucks. But, again, the numbers of bucks can, indeed, increase when there’s no antlerless deer hunts. But, that’s fine so long as deer and habitat quality are maintained.

Again, with regard to DVA increase, there can be other reasons besides hunting that contribute to deer-car collisions. Some reasons have been mentioned: it can be that deer can be within normal bio carrying capacity but there are just too many humans, too many roads and/or vehicles; DVAs increase during the rut and daylight hour changes when clocks change when human traffic is at its height when deer move during darker hours.

You don’t seem to understand deer population dynamics and fluctuations and the concept that nonhunting factors can also contribute to deer population increases, and the notion that hunting strategies change season to season to accommodate predictable and unpredictable changes in deer populations. That’s why deer management agencies use terms and strategies that “provide deer”, “fawn recruits”, “restoration” as well as “reduction,” “fawn crops,” etc. Hunting is about both reducing and adding deer, with the aim of maintaining deer-habitat health and quality.

Deer management's aims are to promote healthy deer herds that are in balance with the habitat, to have bucks and does in all age classes, and to have a balanced ratio of bucks to does. To achieve a viable deer-habitat ratio with balanced age structure and distribution and balanced gender ratio different strategies are used: e.g., banning shooting spikehorn bucks, implementing doe hunting, bag limits, hunting season type (rifle, bow, muzzleloader) and length, permitting/limiting/banning feeding plots and/or supplemental feedings where/when/what, land-access policies, etc., etc. The by-products of these different strategies used for quality (not just quantity) deer management are fluctuations (because hunting strategies change with hunting seasons depending on different factors, some predictable/preventable/manipulable, some not, and some factors about deer behaviour and population dynamics that are controllable, through various hunting strategies, over time, not just at one hunt) in reduction, increased production, more older bucks (which does not mean that management strategies are foremost trophy-driven), etc., etc.

That’s why in the Quality Deer Management Association Whitetail Report different US states earn kudos or not for quality, rather than quantity (which is important not on its own but in context and as it relates to a balanced deer number to available habitat for food and cover ratio) of deer. My State was actually known for having one of the densest deer herds in the country. Density was due to different factors, including very few predators (removed to protect people, their homesteads and livestock), but which resulted in deer thriving. Over time, with no effective predation to immediately control incremental surpluses of deer, more deer continued to live longer than usual, but struggled as more competed with less available habitat for nutrition, and many deer began to starve as their habitat was over-browsed. (There were other factors like forest growth over a century on farmland abandoned in the 1800s, thus creating more habitat for deer, and also increasing suburbia dividing some land and where there are fewer predators and hunting banned or limited – all mentioned before and you don’t challenge). My state no longer has the number of deer it used to have, largely because of the way regulated hunting was used as a tool for deer herd management. Deer size was adjusted (actually reduced over time) in accordance with local biological and/or social needs. Deer sizes still fluctuate, sometimes to where there are more deer than there should be in a parcel of land, of course (an unpredictably mild winter and/or another shopping plaza with surrounding housing development created on once deer habitat, e.g.), but overall deer herd size have drastically **reduced** from what they were and deer no longer cause the damage they do and their health no longer so negatively impacted when they were able to reproduce beyond available habitat.

There's no doubt that deer management is intended to also provide a **sustained yield** (rather than just adding) of deer for consumption by licensed hunters. Again, what of it? The biology and population dynamics of deer remains: Deer are prey animals adapted to predation (nonhuman animal and, when you look at pre-colonial history, human predation pressure as well) pressures, i.e., being killed and eaten; hence the deer's enormous capacity to reproduce even with 'normal' nonhuman predation before human encroachment. That predator factor is gone because of human activity (not sport hunting activity, but human population growth, human colonisation and land-use practices). Some form of immediate killing (predation) must simulate animal predation that could control deer size so that the rest can be matched to and survive in available habitat and its restoring capacity.

“ … DNR are run by hunters and those opposed to killing innocent deer are ignored. That is why we want fight for no-hunters to have equal say so for our wildlife like the people in Wisconsin are doing right now.

http://www.thepetitionsite.com/1/Help-W ... ife-Lovers

And we want to do it in NJ and hopefully other states will follow. Why should only the pro-kill people have power to always be able to choose killing when many of us do not want it knowing full well it does not work, its cruel, its dangerous, and hunting for deer "reduction" is a lie."

DNR may be run by hunters (I don't really know) perhaps in part because hunting has so far proven to be the most effective management tool, biologically, ecologically, economically, logistically, etc., to simulate predation, which is one of the most important mechanisms for deer population control. A predation vacuum occurred, not because of hunting, but because … you know, it’s already been explained for you in posts past. The science is already there, Caroline, of what happens when we leave deer to nonhuman Nature’s course. Your opinion that killing/hunting does not work is not true. I’ve also given you an example of my State where “reduction” was the overall result. Some so-called ‘hunting’ is undoubtedly cruel, but that’s not really “hunting”; its slob hunting or unethical hunting. Sometimes, it is just a horrible accident. Lots of things are dangerous (me cycling on the main roads for my work meetings is bloody dangerous I can assure you). Hunting is not as dangerous as other sports and activities. Also, hunters have paid. And, guess what, the majority of the US population who also pay are not against hunting (even though most do not hunt). I believe we enjoy seeing healthy rural deer because of hunting. I’d prefer to see well nourished deer even though it sad for me to know there will be individual deer, together known as mere ‘surplus’ , will be killed by hunting, rather than no hunting but fewer unhealthy rural deer struggling in degrading habitat and other animals struggling because of deer feeding and population behaviour and that habitat-animals may not exist in the future. But, that’s just me. IC fertility control is not a viable alternative for controlling larger, free-roaming rural wild deer. Anyhoo, anyone can contribute in land acquisition for nonconsumptive (nonhunting) use, contribute to nongame refuge systems, education, volunteer and research, etc. I know we have had public meetings in my community in re hunting or no hunting. Hunters haven’t always won, and sometimes there are differences of opinion and interpretation of science even within the pro-hunting and professional community. It’s often a matter of making a case based on science and rationality, and respecting and balancing/compromising differing opinions.

As far as fighting for no-hunters, you have not gone about it in a respectful and truthful way on this discussion forum, when you misuse Dr. Kirkpatrick’s studies on IC deer fertility control of discrete human-habituated urban/suburban deer as proof that sport hunting of other rural wild free-roaming deer is not needed. It’s not about pro-kill people having the power to chose what happens to deer. It’s about the misuse of science and research studies and misuse of public opinion poles and studies by “AR” advocates. That is my opinion.



What you wrote does not explain nothing at all. If hunting is about "reduction" and of course to "reduce" DVA's we should be spending more time , money and effort on Deer birth control for urban areas, ban the food plots and actually stop the killing because of the sudden drop of deer population from hunting will cause more fawn births. I have already mentioned how the pro-kill Agencies knows this and use it to their advantage.


First of all what is CRE (Compensatory Rebound Effect)?

What is reproductive rebound?
"Reproductive rebound is a well documented population dynamic in deer and other mammals. Deer conceive multiple embryos but the number of fawns actually born is determined by a number of complex factors including nutrition and herd density. With competition for food reduced by a sudden drop in herd numbers, younger fawns will breed and females will give birth to twins and triplets instead of single fawns.
In its 1990 report, "An Assessment of Deer Hunting in New Jersey," New Jersey Fish and Game offered a detailed example of this process. Its report shows that even during hunting seasons in which killing female deer was the objective (antlerless seasons), the remaining females had increased birthrates that not only replaced the ones killed, but increased the overall size of the herd. " PZP FAQ's

Now from article called "Hunting can increase wildlife disease epidemic they too mention CRE

"One reason the policies failed, Choisy and Rohani said, is that they didn’t take into account an ecological principle known as compensation. When a portion of the animal population is reduced, those that survive are left with more resources such as food and shelter. As a result of the newly plentiful resources, the death rate decreases and the birth rate increases, compensating – and sometimes overcompensating – for the loss. Hunting Can Increase The Severity Of Wildlife Disease Epidemics"

Now from the hunting website such as DNR game commission and "deer management" website like QDM

DNR knows about CRE and use it to their advantage for more fawn birth thus larger deer herd size and you can see their main interest in the buck fawns.

“By keeping the deer population below the carrying capacity of the available habitat, more forage (nutrition) is available per deer. Thus, does are healthier, reproductive success is higher and more does are able to carry two fawns. Ironically, this can result in a greater deer harvest each year. Depending on the relationship of the population and the carrying capacity, an „optimum sustained yield‟ can be achieved where a relatively high reproductive rate allows an abundant harvest each fall. With high-quality habitat and increased nutrition, the percentage of
doe fawns that breed their first fall increases (sometimes up to 25 percent). Also, a higher percentage of yearling does produce two fawns instead of one. Because fawns are born at approximately a 1:1 sex ratio, more bucks may be born each year. Therefore, in some areas, you actually can increase the number of bucks born by shooting more does.” “Quality Deer Management: Guidelines for Implementation,” 6. Agricultural Extension Service, The University of Tennessee. http://www.utextension.utk.edu/publicat ... pb1643.pdf (last accessed November 2008)


Nothing what you have written makes any sense. The hunting industry producing deer plain and simple for recreational hunting of deer. Whitetails are worth billions because 70% of the profit from the sports hunting industry comes from whitetails they do not want to reduce the herd size in long term and that is why they reject IC deer birth control and why DVA's continues to climb. Even your own people said this.


“With a lot of hunters in the woods, they will push deer out of wooded areas, making them run across the road,” Missouri Department of Conservation Agent Dan Akin said.

http://www.bransondailynews.com/story_p ... oryID=5041


So when you add all those big rack deer in rut and with hunters terrorizing the forest of course there be high DVA's in heavily hunted states. Overall DVA's has gone up 18% since 2002 yet hunters still claim they "reduce" it.


Should Hunting be held accountable for human injuries and death from DVA?

http://mathew5-7.blogspot.com/search?up ... results=28


Lastly you say

"You may, indeed, be right in that supplemental feeding is done to increase deer survival for more deer to hunt next season. So what? So long as deer and habitat ratio and so quality are maintained, which is the main purpose." Reeves.



You are twisting my words around. I did mention that some states do not allow supplement feeding especially state were CWD are spreading rapidly like Wisconsin and W. VA but they use food plots to grow large antlered deer and guess who else eat the food plots.? The does.

Supplement feeding is not for deer survival to benefit the deer its to benefit the killers plus its for large antler growth and more fawn births thus overpopulation and you say "so what"? And you blame the rut deer that hunting industry created to begin with for DVA's too. So lots of deer, lots of killers in the forest where is no peace for the animals will equal high DVAs with human death.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 291 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18 ... 20  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 5 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group