Out of state hunters

[BOHNTR]

4 hours ago, 654321 said:

Take a look at Montana's regulations, when they say  • Skull plates or antlers with no meat or tissue attached I would assume that means no velvet.  So far every state that has restrictions has this clause.    If CWD infects enough animals, it will probably reduce the herd in the long term. Other states have seen deer populations decline when CWD infects 20 to 40 percent of a herd. In Wyoming, heavily-infected herds of mule deer declined 21 percent per year and whitetails declined by 10 percent. Colorado saw a 45 percent decline in infected mule deer herds over 20 years. Clearly, if left unchecked, CWD could result in largescale population declines.  
 This is from Montana website.  Arizona is surrounded by CWD positive states so why wouldn't the state do everything it can to try and keep the disease out as long as possible.

Velvet antlers are allowed in MT

[654321]

2 minutes ago, BOHNTR said:

Velvet antlers are allowed in MT

your saying velvet isn't considered a tissue

[BOHNTR]

I would say it’s a tissue, but I’m being told there is NO velvet antlers restrictions in MT.

[654321]

7 minutes ago, BOHNTR said:

I would say it’s a tissue, but I’m being told there is NO velvet antlers restrictions in MT.

I'm just curious is the Montana Game and Fish telling you there are no velvet restrictions or friends?  • Skull plates or antlers with no meat or tissue attached . 

Why include antlers in your restrictions if your not worried about meat or tissue. Again I'm just curious.  If you're interested there is a pretty good document the Michigan DNR put out.  If you type in Chronic Wasting Disease and Cervidae Regulations in North America in a search engine it is a 9 page document of all 50 states and I believe 9 Canadian provinces.

[BOHNTR]

Ha...both, he’s a retired MT Region 1 warden.  

I’m aware of the document.....it’s good read for those not familiar with CWD issues.  Again, there has been NO case ever documented where CWD has been transferred by means of velvet antlers.  That’s my only issue with this new push.  

 

 

 

[654321]

5 minutes ago, BOHNTR said:

Ha...both, he’s a retired MT Region 1 warden.  

I’m aware of the document.....it’s good read for those not familiar with CWD issues.  Again, there has been NO case ever documented where CWD has been transferred by means of velvet antlers.  That’s my only issue with this new push.  

 

 

 

What does your buddy think about how Montana is dealing with CWD in its state?  Does he think all the regulations are over kill or does he think they're going about it the right way? 

[BOHNTR]

I think he supported most of it......but he also said there were knee jerk reactions that created some unwarranted polices by panicked decision makers who didn’t know enough about the issue......which we’re still learning.   He remembers what happened in WI (mass killing).  

He’s also one that believes CWD has been around forever.

[654321]

14 minutes ago, BOHNTR said:

I think he supported most of it......but he also said there were knee jerk reactions that created some unwarranted polices by panicked decision makers who didn’t know enough about the issue......which we’re still learning.   He remembers what happened in WI (mass killing).  

He’s also one that believes CWD has been around forever.

👍 After reading that document I mentioned it just seems the AZGFD isn't reinventing the wheel when it comes to CWD management they're basically falling the exact same guidelines as a lot of other states.  I know if I was the one tasked with disease detection, management and spread for the department I would probably error on the side of caution.

[BOHNTR]

5 minutes ago, 654321 said:

👍 After reading that document I mentioned it just seems the AZGFD isn't reinventing the wheel when it comes to CWD management they're basically falling the exact same guidelines as a lot of other states.  I know if I was the one tasked with disease detection, management and spread for the department I would probably error on the side of caution.

I understand that....but why the VELVET restriction?  It seems they have 'invented the wheel' on that issue!  If you're going to implement statutes based on "caution" or fear without scientific and factual data to support the restriction, then why not just ban ALL out-of-state cervid animals from being imported into that state if you're REALLY concerned about the spread.      

[654321]

21 minutes ago, BOHNTR said:

I understand that....but why the VELVET restriction?  It seems they have 'invented the wheel' on that issue!  If you're going to implement statutes based on "caution" or fear without scientific and factual data to support the restriction, then why not just ban ALL out-of-state cervid animals from being imported into that state if you're REALLY concerned about the spread.      

It seems to me that they did ban all out of state cervid animal parts that may be responsible for the spread of CWD.  They just went the extra step adding velvet.

[CatfishKev]

7 hours ago, 654321 said:

Take a look at Montana's regulations, when they say  • Skull plates or antlers with no meat or tissue attached I would assume that means no velvet.  So far every state that has restrictions has this clause.    If CWD infects enough animals, it will probably reduce the herd in the long term. Other states have seen deer populations decline when CWD infects 20 to 40 percent of a herd. In Wyoming, heavily-infected herds of mule deer declined 21 percent per year and whitetails declined by 10 percent. Colorado saw a 45 percent decline in infected mule deer herds over 20 years. Clearly, if left unchecked, CWD could result in largescale population declines.  
 This is from Montana website.  Arizona is surrounded by CWD positive states so why wouldn't the state do everything it can to try and keep the disease out as long as possible.

I wonder why the whitetail herds seem less affected then the mule deer?

Any thoughts?

[654321]

50 minutes ago, CatfishKev said:

I wonder why the whitetail herds seem less affected then the mule deer?

Any thoughts?

Just a guess but maybe it has to do with population size? More mule deer compared to whitetail.

[CatfishKev]

13 minutes ago, 654321 said:

Just a guess but maybe it has to do with population size? More mule deer compared to whitetail.

Could be, also wonder if it's because mule deer are more nomadic. Just seems interesting to me. 

[yotebuster]

2 hours ago, CatfishKev said:

I wonder why the whitetail herds seem less affected then the mule deer?

Any thoughts?

Because those numbers came out of thin air.  Winter mortality, hunting, blue tongue  and predators are all huge contributors to deer populations, some more heavily influential in some areas on whitetails and others worse in mule deer.  The amount of variables makes it impossible to pin a number on what has happened to populations in CWD “infected” areas.  Couple that with the fact that game and fish agencies have made it SOP to go in and eradicate deer in areas the happen to find it and you have no effective way of know what is happening with it on a population wide perspective.  

[Outdoor Writer]

On 8/25/2019 at 6:34 AM, BOHNTR said:

 Funny how their press release explains how CWD is spread (brain tissue and spinal column fluid) yet there’s never been a documented case of CWD spread via velvet antlers.  So why restrict it?  

The press release actually said those two things can help spread CWD, mostly through direct contact. They aren't the sole source. Plus, those are the two things that the prions attack the most. In order for them to be infected, though, the prions have to be introduced into the animal in some way.  CWD prions have been found in urine, blood, feces and saliva of infected deer and elk, and it's usually one of those that passes the prions from one critter to the next. I recall also reading a while back that they're researching whether ticks or mosquitoes might be spreading CWD. Not sure where that is at, however. 

As for the velvet antlers, they normally contain blood. But then so does boned out meat. So that leaves the question of why ban one and not the other?