# Another One



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Buck near Ashland tests positive for CWD
By Paul A. Smith of the Journal Sentinel 
Nov. 12, 2010

A white-tailed deer from a shooting preserve in northern Wisconsin has tested positive on a screening test for chronic wasting disease, according to the Wisconsin Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.

"We've had the initial positive but we are waiting for confirmation from another lab," said Lee Sensenbrenner, DATCP spokesman. "We want to make sure it's not a false positive before making any formal announcements."

The CWD-positive result came in a test run at the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory in Madison. Tissue samples from the deer, reportedly a 3-year-old buck on a shooting preserve near Ashland, have been sent to the Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory in Ames, Iowa.

Pending confirmation of the result, Sensenbrenner declined to release the name of the farm on which the deer lived.

The Ames lab runs the "gold standard" test for CWD. Sensenbrenner said he expects to receive the results Friday or Monday.

If confirmed, the finding would be the first CWD-positive deer in northern Wisconsin. The fatal deer disease has been found in wild deer in 1,000-square-mile Chronic Wasting Disease Management Zone in southern Wisconsin, as well as game farms in central and eastern Wisconsin. The disease was first discovered in Wisconsin in 2002.

"Not good," said Mike Riggle a veterinarian, hunter and Wisconsin Conservation Congress member from Medford. "Everybody has been holding their breath for the last 8 years."

"Folks in the north had thought that this isn't our problem," said Riggle, who also serves as chairman of the CWD Committee of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress. "Now, boom, it is our problem."

Riggle said the likelihood of a false-positive was "very, very remote."

The buck was tested as part of a protocol on deer farms in the state. DATCP has authority over cervid farms in Wisconsin.

The Department of Natural Resources has begun contingency planning, said Tom Hauge, wildlife chief, including possibly increased testing of wild deer in the area.

Previous testing of over 1,000 wild deer in the Ashland area had turned up no CWD-positives, according to the DNR.

Though fatal to deer and elk, CWD has shown no link to human health or livestock.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

GARDEN CITY, Minn. - Five years ago, bovine tuberculosis was discovered in a beef herd in northwestern Minnesota.

The discovery of more TB-positive cattle and TB-positive white-tailed deer in the area led to the downgrading of Minnesota's TB status.

To target efforts to control the disease, state animal health officials created a management zone around the area where TB-positive cattle and deer had been found.

Since the first case of bovine TB was found, Minnesota's cattle producers have worked with the Minnesota Board of Animal Health, Minnesota Department of Agriculture and Minnesota Department of Natural Resources to regain bovine TB-free status.

On Oct. 1, those tireless efforts paid off.

The majority of Minnesota was upgraded to TB-free and the Modified Accredited zone was upgraded to Modified Accredited Advanced.

Making it happen

This success happened because of an effective animal disease traceability program, mutual cooperation of several state agencies with cattle producers and access to state and federal funding necessary to contain, control and eradicate the disease.

The BAH already had a database of premises with livestock. That database needed to be as complete and accurate as possible to efficiently trace and eradicate the disease.

In the first few months, significant effort went into locating all farms with cattle and updating the premises' database.

For producers to feel comfortable participating, issues such as data confidentiality, minimizing cost to producers and manageable reporting and compliance requirements needed attention.

The producers' part

Producers needed to provide accurate records of animals they bought and sold to expedite the trace-back process.

In addition, the BAH needed the authority to control the movement of livestock in a disease control situation.

The Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation supported that authority because of the positive working relationship the BAH has established with producers and farm organizations.

Another key factor in Minnesota's efforts to stop bovine TB was that state officials from the BAH, MDA and DNR asked for input from producers in the management zone and from farm organizations to develop the most effective strategy to get back to TB-free status.

It was producer suggestions that led to increased DNR efforts to eradicate TB from the white-tailed deer population.

With the help of Farm Bureau and others, money was made available for voluntary depopulation and to assist with fencing to keep deer away from stored feed. A tax credit was given to offset the cost of TB testing.

As a result of the positive outreach efforts of state agencies, Minnesota Farm Bureau Federation delegates approved changes in state policy to support the efforts of state animal health officials to achieve split-state status and continue efforts to upgrade the entire state to TB-free status.

Room to improve

The animal disease traceability system in Minnesota worked well, but there was room for improvement, particularly in recordkeeping.

Not all of the producers and livestock dealers had complete, accurate records of the animals they had bought and sold, which delayed the trace-back process.

We saw USDA's announcement to no longer proceed with the National Animal Identification System in favor of a more flexible, state-led approach that would set standards, but allow states to determine the best ways to meet them; as a better way to protect animal health and maintain a safe food supply.

Minnesota animal health officials are able to keep premise information confidential. They have reached out to producers and farm organizations for input on minimizing the record-keeping and reporting requirements to that which is necessary for disease traceability, and they have listened to concerns about costs to producers.

We may not always be comfortable giving our personal farm information to a government agency. However, when we need them to eradicate a disease, we want them to have the resources and tools necessary to protect our livelihood.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

HELENA, Mont. - A bacterial disease has been found in Ted Turner's 4,600-head bison herd in Montana, the first time brucellosis has been discovered in a domestic herd in the state in more than two years.

The disease, which can cause pregnant bison, cattle and elk to abort their fetuses, was found in a 7-year-old cow about two weeks ago and is suspected in two other bison on Turner's Flying D Ranch, state veterinarian Marty Zaluski said.

The cow has been killed and the other two have been quarantined from the rest of the herd pending test results, he said. They also will be slaughtered after the testing is completed.

Officials have tested most of the 2,000 animals on the ranch that livestock officials have determined could carry the disease. An investigation is under way to trace the source of the infection and to find out whether it has spread.

"That's the million-dollar question," Zaluski said. "It is rare. We test tens of thousands of samples for brucellosis and we haven't found this disease (until now)."

The Flying D is one of 15 Turner ranches in seven states with a total of 50,000 bison, according to Turner Enterprises Inc.'s website. Turner, a media mogul, also owns Ted's Montana Grill, a restaurant chain in 19 states that specializes in bison.

The infection and the quarantine should not substantially affect the Flying D's operations, even though the 4,600-head represent all the bison on the ranch, Turner Enterprises Inc. general manager Russ Miller said.

The herd is separated from 86 Yellowstone National Park bison that Turner took in last year, and those bison are disease free, Miller said.

Turner agreed to take care of the Yellowstone bison for five years after they were spared from a government slaughter program meant to guard Montana's cattle industry against park bison infected with brucellosis. In exchange, Turner gets 75 percent of their offspring.

The quarantine on the Flying D ranch means the animals can only be taken from the ranch for slaughter, but they can still be used in meat products because brucellosis poses no human health risk, Miller and Zaluski said.

Even so, all the bison headed for slaughter from the Flying D will be tested for the disease before they enter the food chain, Zaluski said.

"We will follow whatever the state protocols are," Miller said.

The quarantine will be in effect until the epidemiology investigation is complete, which could take months, Zaluski said.

Miller said he suspects the origins of the infection is wild elk on the ranch.

"We are always going to be in contact with brucellosis-infected wildlife and this will probably be a persistent problem that we and the rest of the ranchers will be faced with," Miller said.

Brucellosis was last found in Montana in a Park County cattle herd in 2008, which led to the state losing its brucellosis-free status and other states restricting the importation of cattle from Montana. The brucellosis-free status was restored in 2009.

Zaluski said he does not believe this incident will result in another loss of status because the U.S. Department of Agriculture is in the process of a regulation change that would look at brucellosis regionally rather than statewide.

The changes have not yet been made, but he said there is evidence the USDA is embracing the concept after a similar instance of brucellosis earlier this year in Idaho did not result in that state losing its brucellosis-free status.

"The USDA, I believe, recognizes that we are going to have these infrequent instances where we have brucellosis-infected wildlife," Zaluski said. "Our job is to try to prevent these spillovers and make them as infrequent as possible."


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Thanks for posting Dick. I have hunted deer in northern wisconsin and this is serious problem. In all the previous years, the tested wild animals from the northern part of the state have been CWD free. Now some money grubbing game farmer trying to sell big antlers brought a diseased animal into the area. At least the testing program caught the problem, but how much you want to bet that it will probably spread to the wild population just like it did in the central part of the state. I wish the game ranchers would try to develop a live test like brucellosis or TB instead of having to kill the animal to test for CWD. If it were me, I would charge every game ranch a fee on each head that would go directly to research to develop a live test for CWD. If I owned a game farm, I would want to put as much money as necessary into developing a test so that I could claim every animal in my herd is certified disease free for TB, brucellosis and CWD and get people off my back. Two of the three are already developed. It's what other ranchers with other livestock did. They put up a lot of money to do the research to find live tests for anthrax, TB and brucellosis.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

I believe development of a live test is already in the works on those worthless, money grubbing game farms.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

LT said:


> I believe development of a live test is already in the works on those worthless, money grubbing game farms.


That will be a huge improvement.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

indsport said,



> I have hunted deer in northern wisconsin and this is serious problem. In all the previous years, the tested wild animals from the northern part of the state have been CWD free. Now some money grubbing game farmer trying to sell big antlers brought a diseased animal into the area. At least the testing program caught the problem, but how much you want to bet that it will probably spread to the wild population just like it did in the central part of the state.


At the epicenter of the disease in central Wisconsin is the university of Madison. Many years ago scientists there contacted Dr. Beth Williams in Wyoming and asked for infected brain tissue. They had live deer at the college and they escaped. When the authorities moved in all records on the deer had been convienantly lost. The scientists claimed they only dabbled around with the infected tissue and mice. Hmmm

For twelve years now the ND elk and deer growers have been working together with labratories to find a live animal test and finally a cure. Over the next few years the real scientists at USDA etc. will find a way to control CWD. And when they do will they be much back slapping and fan fare made here on nodak by Dick Monson and company? Probably not.

indsport, brucellosis has been eradicated in the United States everywhere except Yellowstone National Park. The buffalo and elk are owned by the public. If by Dicks reasoning all farmed elk on game farms must be destroyed because they "may" have the potential to spread disease then by the same reasoning shouldn't all elk and buffalo in Wyoming be destroyed as they are the source herd for brucellosis?


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

So, the question is, what percentage of the budget for CWD research is being funded by the growers in North Dakota? I know part of my tax dollars are going to USDA so I assume that the sportsmen of North Dakota have already donated to the cause.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> And when they do will they be much back slapping and fan fare made here on nodak by Dick Monson and company? Probably not.


I will be one happy camper when that day comes. I live to hunt, so when that happens I will be much more optimistic.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

And when they do will they be much back slapping and fan fare made here on nodak by Dick Monson and company? Probably not. is completely and utterly wrong. If and when there is a good live test for CWD, Dick as well as myself will be happy. If I knew, I would put on NODAK outdoors immediately. This is desperately needed, not just for game farms, but for the wild population as well.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

My question is... If and when CWD is introduced to ND via cervid ranching and exposure to traditional livestock is eminant will the NDSA still stand stedfast as supported or Cervid ranching? Or will the vote change to throw them under the bus like they have any other group that doesn't follow their agenda?


----------



## NDTerminator (Aug 20, 2003)

THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING! And it's all the fault of those damned elk ranches here in ND... :shake:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> My question is... If and when CWD is introduced to ND via cervid ranching and exposure to traditional livestock is eminant will the NDSA still stand stedfast as supported or Cervid ranching? Or will the vote change to throw them under the bus like they have any other group that doesn't follow their agenda?


For Christ sake swift give up this hard on you have over ag groups and the NDSA in particular. At the very least inform yourself a bit before you spout off. Learn a little bit about the various forms of TSE's and what species they each affect before you spout off. The NDSA believes in the use of sound science and appropriate regulatory processes based on this sound science when necessary. We are comfortable the State Board of Animal Health as well as the State Vet's office is doing a good job in regards to these cervid ranches. For over 30 years they have kept this disease risk at bay with some of the most stringent regulations of any state in the nation. The NDSA has a close working relationship with both these entities and ensures they do indeed follow thru on the regulations they have in place as a means of protecting all the states animal ag industries.

The reality is there is a significant a risk of introduction by a hunter not following the law and bringing a carcass with a brain and spinal column into the state from an infected area as there are thru the highly regulated importation process these cervid ranches must follow. But yet Dick and his group have never once mentioned this in regards to their concerns over disease issues entering this state. It ALWAYS falls back onto HF operations in thier mantra, not even Cervid ranches, but HF operations.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> The reality is there is a significant a risk of introduction by a hunter not following the law and bringing a carcass with a brain and spinal column into the state from an infected area as there are thru the highly regulated importation process these cervid ranches must follow. But yet Dick and his group have never once mentioned this


I'm concerned about that. I have many concerns, but the subject was high fence. Why didn't you mention it before? I wouldn't expect you to, but if you expected others to then you should have. I understand your concern with imported brain stems and I agree, but I don't agree the subjects had correlation.

I tell you what you keep track of those things and keep us posted. Others like Dick can keep us posted on things like high fence. Being on top of all these things is worth it for our state, it's wildlife, and perhaps you.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Plainsman,

On the night of the election, we have heard that there was a professor from Valley City College being interviewed on one of the Valley City radio stations. He stated that he could not undertand why measure 2 was not passing, as "these game farms spread disease." So where did this info come from? Wouldn't happen to be from the Barnes County Wildlife Federation?


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I read the NDSA's site to familiarize myself with the org. What I found was enlightening. They have NO supportive measures for sportsman issues. Vote against sportsman issues on nearly every account. Now GST will say This is an ag org not a sportsman/hunting org. IF thats the case why the huge support for RODEO? Isn't that a sport? I had a lot of respect for those orgs until their mouthpiece bashed everything in regards to hunters/ sportsman and showed they are all about themselves without concern for the nonlandowning public. I just call it like I see it. GST if you don't like it dont read it. And how about the question when a sick animal is introduced to the state by a cervid rancher will you slam them as hard as you do the hunters? SImple question but too much for you to handle.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> I read the NDSA's site to familiarize myself with the org. What I found was enlightening. They have NO supportive measures for sportsman issues. Vote against sportsman issues on nearly every account. Now GST will say This is an ag org not a sportsman/hunting org. IF thats the case why the huge support for RODEO? Isn't that a sport? I had a lot of respect for those orgs until their mouthpiece bashed everything in regards to hunters/ sportsman and showed they are all about themselves without concern for the nonlandowning public. I just call it like I see it. GST if you don't like it dont read it. And how about the question when a sick animal is introduced to the state by a cervid rancher will you slam them as hard as you do the hunters? SImple question but too much for you to handle.


swift You have to be kidding comparing the NDSA's support of the western heritage of rodeo and it's direct connection to the cattle industry too something maybe such as duck hunting in regards to the policies of the NDSA?!?!?!?!?  , It is getting harder all the time to keep from calling you an idiot.

Would you consider the ability to separate hunting rights from the land deed and sell or lease them a positive thing for the sportsmen of ND or not? Do you believe the implementation of once over rotational grazing systems, alternative water sources to protect the natural riparian areas, the reintroduction of native grass species, the creation of natural windbreaks thru the planting of shelterbelts, the enrollment of land in the PLOTS program a handful of things are positive for the wildlife and sportsmen of ND? Perhaps you should ask the NDG&F what their opinion of the NDSA is in regards to the sportsmen and wildlife here in ND. They seem more than willing to continue to partner with the NDSA in our Enviromental Stewardship program.

Please familiarize yourself with the various forms of TSE's and the species each affects and their abilities or inabilities to cross to different species. When BSE hit here in the US, the NDSA did not throw anyone "under the bus". When it repeatedly hit in Canada, the NDSA did not "throw anyone under the bus". We relied on factual sound science and precautionary health regulations to protect the cattle industry and the consumer from increased risk. We based our positions and policy on that very same factual sound science, even at a cost to our organization. There were those within the cattle industry that attempted the very same thing Dick is by using rhetoric and mistruthes to further their personal agendas. When the dust settled, the NDSA as well as other cattle orgs that took the position of using factual sound science emerged as having maintained the standard of factual truth and responsibility for much more than a personal agenda and the respect and credibility this org has was maintained. So if you wish to continue this personal fetish you have over this cattlemans group, it's 80 year history of one of the most respected ag orgs in this state as well as one of the most respected cattle orgs in this nation will I'm sure go untarnished by your ramblings and rants.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Just a little bit more.

http://billingsgazette.com/lifestyles/r ... 5df7f.html


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick,

Do you have any similar stories about elk and buffalo in Wyoming infected with brucellosis? The disease brucellosis has been eradicated in the United States except in Wyoming. The source herd (Yellowstone National Park) is owned by the public.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DG said:


> Dick,
> 
> Do you have any similar stories about elk and buffalo in Wyoming infected with brucellosis? The disease brucellosis has been eradicated in the United States except in Wyoming. The source herd (Yellowstone National Park) is owned by the public.


I don't see the relevance, unless of course your trying to say that because a wild animal spreads disease it's only fair to let you spread disease. Is that your point? What is your point? I'm guessing Dick is concerned about CWD. If your concerned about brucellosis maybe you could start a thread on that. Does the grazing association have a home page to talk about those concerns. You know since it's public land maybe moving the cows off would cure the problem.

Say by the way, who did ranchers first pay for those "GRAZING RIGHTS"? Also, why do the pay each other for those grazing rights when the ranch changes hands. It would appear to me you should be paying the taxpayer who owns the land, not the guy who only rents it. Another thing that would be fair to the taxpayer is pay a fair price for the rent.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, the relevance is the disease brucellosis has all but been wiped out the last remaining animals carrying the disease are wild animals that no one wants to really do anything about. It is not about the animals grazing public lands in this area, (nice attempt to change the subject though) it is about wild animals traveling onto private lands and infecting private herds and thus spreading this disease outside it's containment area. When is the last time Dick posted something about the risk of brucellosis spreading outside it's contained boundries??? If Dick is truly concerned about the disease issues affecting the wild herds in other states such as he continueally posts regarding CWD happening in these OTHER states, why does he disregard what is happening in the Yellowstone area? I guarantee you if brucellosis was to broaden it's range it would have a much greater negative affect on both wild and domestic animals than CWD ever would.

So to answer my question, it does not help his cause regarding his personal crusade to end an activity he is opposed to. These arrogant elitists will never quit until they get their way, no matter how it splits the hunting community and divides farmers/ranchers and hunters. Instead of accepting their responsibilities in this they will simply blame it on nonresidents, G&Os, commercialization ect......


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I take those other diseases serious also, but when I look at what endangers our deer herds I look at CWD first. I don't think it's odd that those concerned with wildlife and hunting would talk about what they think is the most likely to cause havoc.



> So to answer my question, it does not help his cause regarding his personal crusade to end an activity he is opposed to. These arrogant elitists will never quit until they get their way, no matter how it splits the hunting community and divides farmers/ranchers and hunters. Instead of accepting their responsibilities in this they will simply blame it on nonresidents, G&Os, commercialization ect......


I don't see how CWD is a nonresident, or guide problem. I can see commercialization as a problem. Simply because there is a temptation to turn a blind eye if money is to be made or lost.

GST don't complain that others are not starting threads interesting to you. If you want to talk about other disease start a thread.

Edit: I forgot to ask: Isn't the only place cattle are coming into contact with brucellosis on government land next to the parks? I only ask because I was not aware it was spreading any distance from the park. I'm not trying to put you on the spot here, I seriously want to know.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman, remember the news videos of people shooting buffalo crossing roads and the uproar that occured as a result? Once those buffalo crossed that road they were no longer on "public" land.

The point you are overlooking is that Dick claims disease issues are his driving factor. Yet he does not post any disease issues happening here in our state where the rules we have in place to prevent it have been succeeding in doing just that for over 3 decades, but rather posts instances from other states that perhaps lack the stringent regulations ND has as a means of furthering his agenda. You claimed suggestions that HSUS would become involved in this measure were merely "scare tactics" what do you call what Dick is doing? He is not concerned with any and all disease issuses affecting wildlife, just the ones he can use to further his agenda. It is fairly obvious to anyone that wants to see it.

It appears that just becasue you believe that dispite the regulations in place that have successfully prevented CWD from entering the state in any large scale, there remains the possibility that it will so we should ban the ability of a person to own and use a domestic animal in these HF operations as a precaution. Following that logic because a risk still remains that dispite the rules put in place to prevent a kid from taking a gun to school and going on a shooting spree we should then ban the ability of private individuals to own and use guns to thouroughly prevent this from happening. Do you agree????? Or perhaps because dispite the rules in place to prevent someone from getting drunk and driving and killing someone the risk still exists, we should ban the use and consumption of all alcohol. And on and on and on. Society here in ND voted and said they did not agree with your agenda, despite the best efforts of the HSUS to get them to go along with this groups measure, yet the supporters of this measure will not let it go.

Here's something for you to consider http://www.fishingbuddy.com/ndgf_failure Take a look at the number of people stating how good things are here in ND. Perhaps the doom and gloom NDH for FC posed is in reality non existant here in ND.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

It is funny to read the twists.

Dick is concerned about CWD and posts about CWD. There is CWD in ND. CWD is linked to captive cervids. ND does a good job of surveillence and has been lucky and fortunate so far.

DG changes it to a discussion on Brucellosis. GST runs with the twist away from CWD to burcellosis which is endemic to an area 400 miles from ND. The likelihood of an infected Bison ambling all the way across Wyoming or Montana to ND is nil.The arguement is made that domestic animals need to be protected from wild animals. Not the case. If an infected deer enters a pasture and infects the entire herd with TB, CWD or whatever that is the risk ranchers assume when they buy a herd. Ranchers do however carry the liablility of a domestic animal infecting the wild herd. We all have inherent risks and liabilities with our professions or vocations and this is one. To make the arguement that wild animals must be removed from grazing lands, public or private is just simply wrong. Wild animals don't read trespassing signs. Shooting bison that crossed the road to protect your herd is poaching and should be illegal.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Swift:


> CWD is linked to captive cervids.


And I find it ironic how the captive herd that may be the first link was a wildlife research center in Wyoming (and Wyoming has no private game farms), and here we have in our very own state a wildlife research center with biologists from this research center trying to help shut down cervid ranching in our state.

The biologists hand the baton to Dick who then stirs the pot on here. :shake:


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

LT, atleast you are admitting that captive cervid are linked to the onset of CWD. Does it really matter who owned the herd? The fact remains it is a valid concern. Does the state do a good job of protecting ND from CWD I would have to say NO. They are better than just good. ND's regulatory agencies do an excellent job of protecting ND as evidenced by the large numbers of CWD cases in the surrounding states and provinces.

To turn a blind eye because ND does such a good job would be foolish. Money is the root of all evil. And money will drive people to profit through deceptive practices. I believe that if a domestic animal in ND tests positive the importer and importee should be held civilly and criminally responsible. I do not believe cervid ranches in ND need to be shut down unless they have and animal that tests positive, they have an issue with escape trends or they attmept to deceive the regulatory agencies of the state.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good point swift. Wildlife is like rain, fire, any other (on your insurance act of God) that may endanger any business. Wildlife is part of our natural environment. However, we have been killing wildlife of all kinds to protect farming. I'm not against the removal of coyotes to protect sheep etc. but I don't like it that farmers and ranchers think we are supposed to jump up and help them every time they cry wolf. I am afraid that if the greedy get their way they would kill all wildlife except the wildlife they had penned for shooting.

35 years ago is a little fuzzy, but if I remember right in Wyoming back in the 1970's a rancher claimed a loss of up to 200 lambs each spring from Golden Eagles. After three years federal agents were sent in under cover to watch. That spring they witnessed two lambs killed by eagles. Eagles fed on many that died during birth and on remains left by coyotes, but eagles did not kill nearly as many as the rancher reported. I don't know why they often like to blame wildlife. I think they see government pockets they can get their hands in, but it's the taxpayer putting the money in those pockets. It would appear they have the same mentality as that black woman who thought Obama was going to buy her a car and pay her rent from "his stash".

This is a sportsman, hunter, fisherman, etc site. Sure we talk about other things, but I find it arrogant that those would exploit wildlife expect us to talk about traditional livestock diseases. They are free to start those threads, but to expect us to is silly. Isn't their agricultural sites out there where they can try solve these problems?

Do you remember the last change the Forrest Service made. The Sierra Club on one side and ranchers on the other. It was like a choice of cancer in our left lung or our right lung. The Sierra Club plan is what is behind all the trail closures. I don't like it. However, it was not as bad as giving the grazing association control. They would have worked to kick us off federal land unless we paid them. From every angle there are people working to exploit the hunter. We must remain vigilant.


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

Swift Stated:


> LT, atleast you are admitting that captive cervid are linked to the onset of CWD.


A research facility possibly purposely exposing animals to disease and working with infected tissue is a lot different than a private facility raising animals. Then selling those same animals to zoos, etc. And then trying to point the finger at the private herds. :eyeroll:

Say all you want about greed, really why would most of the owners want to risk the eradication of their whole herd. If these ranchers were so greedy in this state, why would they even ask for the regulations as they have. I believe most of their worst nightmares would be an infected animal as well, and I am sure there are some just hoping for that day in ND. :******:


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Swift said,



> Dick is concerned about CWD and posts about CWD.


No, Dicks first concern is shutting down game farms. PERIOD



> The arguement is made that domestic animals need to be protected from wild animals. Not the case. If an infected deer enters a pasture and infects the entire herd with TB, CWD or whatever that is the risk ranchers assume when they buy a herd. Ranchers do however carry the liablility of a domestic animal infecting the wild herd.


Wrong again, It is everyones responsibility cutting both ways. Tax dollars are collected and the Board of Animal Health, State Vets, Game and Fish and Wildlife services are hired to perform a service, if you will just let them.



> To make the arguement that wild animals must be removed from grazing lands, public or private is just simply wrong. Wild animals don't read trespassing signs. Shooting bison that crossed the road to protect your herd is poaching and should be illegal.


In Wyoming and Montana there are set backs and boundaries around Yellowstone National Park. When an infected buffalo (a tank full of brucellosis) is menacing or threatening to cross the road what is the right coarse of action? It will cost the rancher buku hours of testing his own herd. It may cost the state their brucellosis free status devaluating everyones life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Swift, If something or someone entered your property menacing or threatening your life, your liberty or pursuit of happiness, would you shoot?

As usual you add nothing to the conversation, you are only here to mock.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

DG I agree with you about the buffalo. Once they are down to private land blast them. They are a large animal that in today's world donot have room to roam free like the 1800's. If you guys are worried about buffalo I am surprised your not worried about the ranchers that raise them. Are we sure they are disease free? I would guess so, but I don't know. Do you?

However, if those buffalo stay on public land I don't agree. If something has to give then back the cattle off. Oh, I would still open a season on public land, but I would not agree to shoot all of them. Let the sportsmen take care of them, not the ranchers on public land. Perhaps we both need to work against the bunny huggers who don't want any shooting.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

[quoteSwift, If something or someone entered your property menacing or threatening your life, your liberty or pursuit of happiness, would you shoot?
][/quote]

To answer your question. Yes I would shoot if someone was threatening my wife, children or other family. If I lived next to a 6 lane interstate I would take precautions to prevent my kids from accessing that danger. If my paycheck came from intruding on nature to have a herd of livestock then NO. What do you do to prevent lightening strikes? How about other natural disasters? Wildlife are the true owners of the land. If you don't want to deal with the inherent dangers of wildlife, then drive them all off your land and put up a fence. Oh yeah you did that. You are more of what is right with trying to limit your risks and liabilities than most open range ranchers that believe their livestock has more right to be on the land than wild animals.

Immunize your stock, treat the infections, fence to prevent interactions with the wild disease ridden critters, but if you don't do the steps to avoid natures menaces don't blame nature for your(rhetorically "your") poor planning. As far as the Bison at Yellowstone, they belong wherever they can walk to. If you choose to have a cattle herd in close proximaty to the park you are assuming the liability of an infected cattle herd. Yellowstone is not a zoo. The animals need to protected from the people there not the other way around.

It's too bad that you can't see that others have an opinion too and you discount those opinions as bunk because they don't line up with yours. Open your mind a little there is a huge world out there trying to survive just like you.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift, as I said familiarize yourself with TSE's before you go spouting off about them. The FACT is there is little if any absolute proof where and how TSE's originated and are transferred. There are theories they have ALWAYS been here in wild animals, there are theories that they happen spontaneously, there are theories in how they can be transmitted, ect... there are too many unknowns for anyone, including Nodaks resident "expert"on CWD, Dick, to be making claims based on rhetoric. If you want to have a discussion about disease and it's risks how about we stick to the known facts and not use rhetoric to further agendas. The FACTS are the rules and regulations that NORTH DAKOTA has in place have been effective in preventing diseases in our wild herds for decades. Is the risk nonexistant? Of course not, until they are irradicated there always remains a risk. Rules are put in place to reduce them to acceptable levels. ND's regulations have effectively done that, yet Dick never admits that, refering to other states problems rather than ND's successes.

As to brucellosis, it is not the risk of a bison wandering 400 miles, but a domestic animal infected by a wild animal that comes out of this area onto private lands that is then transported prior to symptoms manifesting or the disease being identified and then transfering the disease where it is relocated too. So the ranchers that have spent decades vacinating their animals to irradicate this diease out of the domestic herd indeed have a legitimate concern when ill informed "sportsmen" claim the killing of wild bison leaving an area onto private land to protect this disease from once again becoming active in the domestic herd is "poaching" and are more concerned with the rancher being punished than the possibility of a devastating disease finding its way out of a contained area into not only the domestic herds but other wildlife as well which will spread it uncontrolled once again. And yet you seem to claim these "disease infected" wild animals have the "right" to wander where ever they want and ranchers have no "right" to protect their "disease free" herds from being infected by removal of these diseased animals from the private lands they wander onto??? Glad there are not people that have this ideology in charge of controlling and preventing the risk of these diseases. :roll:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift said:


> . If my paycheck came from intruding on nature to have a herd of livestock then NO.
> Wildlife are the true owners of the land.
> You are more of what is right with trying to limit your risks and liabilities than most open range ranchers that believe their livestock has more right to be on the land than wild animals./quote]
> 
> ...


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Plainsman,perhaps your years of expertise as a biologist you aluded to earlier gives you the ability to answer this question scientifically and factually in a discussion.


Are you talking about the North Dakota deer with CWD. If you are I am afraid I will have to fess up and say I have not checked into it. I suppose I could do that, but until then I really don't know any more than you do. Right now I plead ignorant. I think I can find out though if your really interested. My guess is no one really knows. If there are diseased animals close in South Dakota I would say chances are it spread naturally. If the closest natural occurrence is say 200 miles I would start looking for other ways it was brought in. I think the year was about 1968 when a fellow did research on deer movement in North Dakota. His work was near Slade refuge south of Dawson, North Dakota. If I remember right the record traveled by a white tail deer (in one year) was 160 miles. Average was under 25 miles. Sorry I can't remember the author.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Are you talking about the North Dakota deer with CWD. If you are I am afraid I will have to fess up and say I have not checked into it. I suppose I could do that, but until then I really don't know any more than you do. Right now I plead ignorant. .


Well at least you are willing to admit this. Dick on the other hand continues to post rhetoric not even related to CWD here in ND soley to continue to stir the pot even after this issue was voted down. Until Dick actually posts something factually relevant to the risk of CWD here in ND and the regulations the appropriate agencies have put in place to prevent it, most anyone that looks at this from a truly unbiased veiw can easily seee what is happening. Dick and his cronies will not end their personal crusade to force their "ethics" onto others regardless of how it divides the hunting community and what rhetoric they have to use to accomplish it. It is less about concerns of disease than it is using this as a tool to further their 6 year agenda.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Are you talking about the North Dakota deer with CWD. If you are I am afraid I will have to fess up and say I have not checked into it. I suppose I could do that, but until then I really don't know any more than you do. Right now I plead ignorant.


For someone that appeared so concerned as to the disease issues related to HF, when the very disease you are concerned with is found in our state you seem surprisingly uninterested. :-? It appears more and more that the concern over disease is simply a "smoke screen" to push a personal agenda opposed to how a very few people choose to hunt. And people like Dick will always beleive their ideologies are superior to anyone elses and will continue to push their agendas and "ethics" onto others.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > Are you talking about the North Dakota deer with CWD. If you are I am afraid I will have to fess up and say I have not checked into it. I suppose I could do that, but until then I really don't know any more than you do. Right now I plead ignorant.
> ...


What happened you liked my post then you dislike my post. Make up your mind. You were not just complementing me to take a shot at Dick were you?  Anyway, maybe Dick has some information I don't yet. I was just sitting back waiting to learn more. I'm not disinterested, it's simply that I have not yet been able to talk to someone that I consider reliable. Until I know I'm not going to run my mouth. 
As far as why I supported the effort last election, it's not simple. Sure I think a hunter that shoots inside the fence is not a hunter. You mentioned dividing hunters, and what I want is to separate us from them. You can call that division if you like and it would be accurate. For the sake of argument lets says I want to divide those shooters from us hunters. 
Disease is actually more important to me than the ethics issue. I always hear how safe things are like raising elk and deer and offshore drilling. I think it's simply a matter of time before more deer are found with CWD, and further I think the high fence operators will spread it no matter how safe they think they are. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how soon. 
You brought up other diseases spread from wild animals to domestic. Since those animals are part of nature I look at that the same as drought, hail, etc. Wildlife agencies owe ranchers nothing for those problems. I would take steps however, by stopping grazing on public lands near any place that had carriers like Yellowstone Park. Back the domestic animals ten miles back from the borders of that park. Of course on private land that is the prerogative of the landowner. Any rancher serious about disease should support that. If they don't they simply want to complain, or they think they have more rights to the land than any other interest. Who was it they paid for those grazing rights? Each other I think because I don't think it was the taxpayer. If that's right I think grazing rights should be eliminated, or the taxpayer paid. The next time a ranch sells the "grazing rights" should not go with it.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman, CWD has been found in ND. Show me where any thread have been posted concerned over this that have not been tied to a HF opponent or used to further their agenda. The fact is people like Dick are merely using this to further an agenda. There is no discussion regarding the disease issue unless it can be used for such. Even you yourself have admitted to it not being much of a concern. Your statement "I suppose I could check into it" seems rather uninterested for someone who claims the disease issue is why they supported this ban.

So now that Ted turners private bison ranch has discovered animals infected with brucellosis that were infected by wild elk, if other wild animals were to be infected by this private herd, who is responsible???? People like yopu and swift should take the time and effort to better inform yourselves to the risk factors, the regulations put in place to prevent disease issues and the record of how and where they are being transferred before coming on these sites and commenting.



Plainsman said:


> You brought up other diseases spread from wild animals to domestic. Since those animals are part of nature I look at that the same as drought, hail, etc. Wildlife agencies owe ranchers nothing for those problems.


This is the mentality that causes most of the problems. Ranchers are spending their monies and a significant effort to erradicate a disease such as brucellosis and yet you claim wildlife agencies owe them nothing???? These efforts benefit not only the domestic herds but the wild animals surrounding them. So these ranchers should not expect these wildlife agencies to do their part to attempt to curb the risks of wild animals transferring this disease back into the domestic herd thru management practices???? That's a hell of a postition to start a discussion from. :roll:

So tell me this when the public grazing is taken away as you suggest, and these infected wild animals move out onto private lands and infect private herds, who is responsible and what steps will be taken??? When wildfires become uncontrolable because of the excessive undergrowth in these federal lands where grazing has been eliminated who will accept responsibility? The people that called for grazing to be eliminated??? For some reason I doubt they will step up to the plate.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> I always hear how safe things are like raising elk and deer and offshore drilling. I think it's simply a matter of time before more deer are found with CWD, and further I think the high fence operators will spread it no matter how safe they think they are. It's not a matter of if, it's a matter of how soon. quote]
> 
> plainsman, you said you wished to have a conversation regarding CWD, I said it would be nice if that conversation were based on factual sound science. Please show the facts and the sound science that enables you to make the above claim regarding CWD here in ND.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

A question to all here:

*If a preventative or cure for CWD is to be developed, will it be a result of testing on captive herds or out among the "free" animals? * 
Reality is no medical cure will come out of the wild animals. The resulting answer may also have direct clinical possiblities for Human problems involving brain proteins. Somebody's grandparent, brother, sister, spouse, or child's life may depend on the research.
Someday we may *all* be thankful that those animals were held captive.

Take a moment to think about it!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

NDeagli, both Dept of Agriculture, and Wildlife Biologists are studying the disease. Who knows where it will come from. I would guess if the captive herds think they are safe then the wildlife people will be putting more money into research. Caprive herds are isolated so may only loose 50 or 60 animals. Since wild herds of an entire state could be nearly eliminated the wildlife people are putting a lot of effort into finding something to stop CWD.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> Since wild herds of an entire state could be nearly eliminated the wildlife people are putting a lot of effort into finding something to stop CWD.


plainsman, can you show where any populations of wild animals in the states were CWD has been discovered have been "nearly eliminated" ????? This is the kind of rhetoric that makes it hard to carry on a discussion regarding disease based on factual sound science. But it does make for good sensational claims regarding personal agendas. :roll:

At least you are admitting no one knows where it will come from, perhaps you should let Dick know that as well, as it seems he is pretty sure he knows! :-?


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> NDeagli, both Dept of Agriculture, and Wildlife Biologists are studying the disease. Who knows where it will come from. I would guess if the captive herds think they are safe then the wildlife people will be putting more money into research. Caprive herds are isolated so may only loose 50 or 60 animals. Since wild herds of an entire state could be nearly eliminated the wildlife people are putting a lot of effort into finding something to stop CWD.


Odd response, Plainsman?

I would believe working together to contain the problem is a better answer. Its in the interest of the ranchers,the DofA, NDGF, all scientists involved to continue researching possible remedies on captive animals *rather then just testing for CWD on wild critters then just placing another chalk mark on the black board then start pointing fingers **"see there is another one"*. 
That is the most childish "head in the sand" way to appoarch the problem.
A bit like Chicken Little screaming the sky is falling!
All out panic, without knowing the actual truth.

It will take effort by both sides to correctly and safely find an answer that will benefit all. 
The disease has been around since the early sixties, like nuclear wapons its not going to go away on its own.

*Now your the motive isn't to find a cure for the disease, but to use it as a way to further your personal agenda against HF operators. *

*Then shame on you!*

As I posted earlier, the possiblities of a "cure" could have a ripple effect for diseases in humans. Think about it!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I don't know why you jumped to the conclusion that they are not working together. Of course they are working together, but they monitor different herds. In some cases I would imagine they monitor the same animals. 
I don't know of any human disease related to CWD so it's a bit of a stretch to think a cure for CWD will be a cure of human diseases. Of course I wouldn't say it's impossible.

If a cure is found for CWD I will not worry much about the people raising deer and elk. I will still say we should control the hunters and not allow people without handicap permits to shoot animals that can not escape. I would be more in favor of controlling hunters and leaving producers alone if they can control the disease.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman CWD is a TSE of which there are several different ones that are tied to different species. BSE in cattle, scrapies in sheep, ect.....The TSE that affects humans is vCJD. As was stated many research discoveries have farther reaching effects outside of just the arena they are discovered in. Discoveries relating to one TSE may indeed be relevant to another.

So tell me this if a prevention for CWD is found and your concerns over the disease issue are nonexistant, you claim you want to "control hunters" outside of disabled hunters from using these operations. Are YOU then going to be the person that determines how "disabled" one has to be to be allowed to use a HF operation?

It seems as if there are a few people that are behind this hf agenda that will only be happy when everyone is doing what THEY want THEM to be doing. Why are you guys unable to realize hunting is an individual sport that has as many levels of satisfaction and varying degrees of what one chooses to put in to it and corespondingly take from it and that the individual must determine that on their own. Simply make that decision for yourselves and let others make it for themselves and enjoy the hunting experience you choose for yourselves.

I guess as long as there are egotistical, arrogant people that believe THEY know what is best for hunting and the people that choose to hunt, this issue will never be put to rest, even if the hunting community and the people of ND have spoken and said otherwise.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

I agree it will never be put to rest because it isn't hunting. You have stated that I am dividing hunters. No, I am dividing hunters from what I consider slob shooters. I don't consider poaching with lights at night hunting. I don't consider using a four guage punt gun hunting, I don't consider shooting out of season hunting, I don't consider shooting out of a speeding pickup hunting.

As far as those who raise deer and elk, if they find a cure for CWD 90% of my problems with them will be gone. If they start crossing red stag with elk I'll get worried again.

I was wondering about the mad cow disease and how close it is related to CWD. I understand it is very close, but as of yet didn't know about humans contracting related diseases. I must admit that after retiring I have been sort of giving my brain a rest and turning to more hunting, fishing, and photography. I have not even kept up my membership with the Wildlife Socieity.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman I stated the people pushing this measure have divided the hunting community here in ND. If you do not realize this over the course of the last 6 years this group pushed their agenda, your brain is doing more than taking a rest. Everything you claim you have a problem with reagarding hunting, spot lighting, punt guns ect... have to do with wild game populations, hf does not. So you and those pushing this measure are simply your forcing your ideologies onto others, not concerns over the management of how wild game is taken. And unfortunately there will apparently always be those that seem to think it is their need to do just that. It is clear that this is what dicks continueing to post these type threads is all about.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Please understand that my disgust is mostly with the hunter, but also with the producer for allowing it.

It doesn't make any difference if it is wild game, captive wild game, or domestic animals. It isn't hunting. When I tell people my number one pastime that I wait for year around is hunting I don't want them thinking high fence along with what I do. I don't want to be guilty by association.

You asked who decides who is handicapped. You see those handicap license plates. They get those after a doctor signs an application to the state. Use the same permit.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

[quoteplainsman I stated the people pushing this measure have divided the hunting community here in ND. If you do not realize this over the course of the last 6 years this group pushed their agenda, your brain is doing more than taking a rest.][/quote]

It seems to me that this "divide" fits right into your agenda there GST. You have shown through your posts to be anti hunter, anti nonlandowner and will use whatever means to first make a divide then drive a wedge into that divide to continue to foster the ill will between landowners and sportsman. Your rhetoric is amusing at best and idiotic at worse. It's time to bury this hatchet and get back to being neighbors and friends.

I know you don't have the capability to do this and you will blast me, but so what, you have all the legitimacy of santa clause.

Plainsman, Dick, DG and anyone else that would like to repair the damage the Hunters for fair chase and the NDSA has done to the relationships between hunters and nonhunters, landowners and nonlandowners and stockman and nonstockman. Add GST to you ignore list and let the healing begin.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Not a bad idea swift, not a bad idea.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

[quote And yet you seem to claim these "disease infected" wild animals have the "right" to wander where ever they want and ranchers have no "right" to protect their "disease free" herds from being infected by removal of these diseased animals from the private lands they wander onto??? ][/quote]

Thanks for proving my point that the Domestic animals have more of a right than the wild animals to live on the land.

[quoteSo answer one simple question, if you want private industry to be held liable and criminally responsible if a disease from domestic animals infects the wild population, who is to be held liable and criminally responsible when a disease from a wild population infects a domestic herd? 
][/quote]

ANSWER... You are accepting the assumed risk to ranch in an area that has not been devoid of wildlife. Wild animals have carte blanche to move about their native areas. When you put an non-native animals into the ecosystem you are accepting the risk that goes with that. End of story. The wild herds are managed as such. You or any other rancher have NO right to "protect" your herds outside of the law, just as a common poacher has no right to shoot whatever they deem a "risk".


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

Interesting that the very first case of CWD(1967) was at a Foothills Wildlife Research Station run by the Colorado Department of Wildlife near Ft. Collins, Co. Documentation seems to show that nearly ALL other cases of the disease trace back to that event. The managers of the Research facility allowed female mule deer to be released back into the wild in the spring after bearing their young, *even though the disease had be discovered there.* Even the charts at the USDA site show that the heaviest concentrations of infected animals surrounds the region around that Colorado Game Research facility spreading out from there. 
Now with this quick study of history who is guilty of allowing the disease to spread in to the "wild".

Good reading: http://www.mad-cow.org/99feb_cwd_special.html
*
An Ignore list? That sounds very Obamaish. Silence the opposing voices. Truly UnAmerican behavior!*


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> An Ignore list? That sounds very Obamaish. Silence the opposing voices. Truly UnAmerican behavior!


You do not understand how it works. Have you ever ignored someone? Were they still capable of speech even though you ignored them? That's how this works. Every person on here has the ability to click ignore and they will not see that persons posts. You can look at one of my posts and click ignore. I will continue to post, but you will not see them. You were not insinuating that if I ignore someone that I am Obamaish were you? What is more infringing on rights, to say I can ignore, or to say I can't ignore, and lets tie plainsman up in a chair and make him listen to us.

Now where is that ignore button again.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

NDeaglei, An ignore list doesn't silence anyone. It just keeps me from having to read the same idiotic posts over and over. Think before you spew. Have you ever screwed up and learned from your mistakes? The Colorado debacle in retrospect was a huge screw up. At the time nothing was known of CWD, it they had the information we have now, things would not have been done the same way. We should learn from it and move on. By the way I don't oppose HFH. I'm glad it went to vote and failed. There are still people out there that can make an informed decision. On the other hand I don't oppose the rights of any US citizen to act upon their rights in governing. I have said from the beginning that trying to stop the intiative from going to vote was far more dangerous than having HFH or not having HFH.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> > An Ignore list? That sounds very Obamaish. Silence the opposing voices. Truly UnAmerican behavior!
> 
> 
> You do not understand how it works. Have you ever ignored someone? Were they still capable of speech even though you ignored them? That's how this works. Every person on here has the ability to click ignore and they will not see that persons posts. You can look at one of my posts and click ignore. I will continue to post, but you will not see them. You were not insinuating that if I ignore someone that I am Obamaish were you? What is more infringing on rights, to say I can ignore, or to say I can't ignore, and lets tie plainsman up in a chair and make him listen to us.
> ...


I understand exactly "how it works", and yes your actions are Obamaish and childish.

Chilidren put there fingers in their ears when they don't want to listen. 
I can just see you sitting there pouting with your fingers in your ears! What a sight! a grown man(I think?) unable to bear the words of someone he disagrees with................ lol!

Your *ignore button* is the exact same thing. Its childish UnAmerican behavior! Just becuase you disagree with another person you are unwilling to listen to their view point. Yep, that very Obamaish regardless how you wish to spin it!

I also see that you are unable to comment on the Meat of my previous post as it is TRUTH! That is also Childish! 
Your batting zero today.
*Now hit that button, little boy.*


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

ND eaglei The link you provided is not a information source based on sound science regarding the TSE infections. If you follow thru this link goes to http://www.organicconsumers.org/madcow.cfm Not really the unbiased source of scientifically backed information that people need to use to inform themselves on these diseases. People with agendas seldom like to use sound science as it rarely furthers their cause.

swift one final question before I end our discussion. Perhaps being based in the medical feild it will be interesting to hear your response. If the AIDS virus had been eradicated from the US in all but the city of say San Fansico do you believe the residents of this area should be able to leave at will and possibly spread this disease back into where it had been eradicated from?



swift said:


> [quote And yet you seem to claim these "disease infected" wild animals have the "right" to wander where ever they want and ranchers have no "right" to protect their "disease free" herds from being infected by removal of these diseased animals from the private lands they wander onto??? ]


Thanks for proving my point that the Domestic animals have more of a right than the wild animals to live on the land. 


> Swift the discussion and issue is not about which animals have more of a "right" to be there , it is about containing a disease risk. Note the use of the word "disease" three times in what I stated. It is clear that no one wants to have a serious discussion regarding disease risks and how to deal with them based on science and realistic, feasible approaches. So it would probably be a good idea to hit that ignore button. Swift, din't you and Maverick do that once before? :wink:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

ND eaglei if you follow thru the site you posted here is where you will end up and where a lot of the information on that site comes from. http://www.farmsanctuary.org/ This is an anti animal ag and if you dig deeper an anti meat org. I have yet to find a site with the title "mad cow" in it that contains purely unbiased factual scientific information in it regarding this cattle disease that is not meant to further an anti meat or anti animal ag agenda.

It is not always so apparent how these groups become linked together and with a little digging you can find how their agendas over lap and often times are one in the same with simply another name to change the appearance of their agendas and give them a little less radical appearance. Most rely on people not informing themselves enough to further their agendas. It is a favorite ploy of the anti animal ag/anti hunting groups. More and more other groups are taking a page from their playbooks, even here in ND. :wink:


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

GST,
Do some research on any site regarding the first known case of CWD. In every case the epicenter is the Rolling Hills Wildlife Research Station in 1967. That's where the first case was and also where it was "released into the wild". 
The first case in the wild is in Rocky Mountain National Park in 1981, which happend to be spitting distance from the Ft. Collins facility. Is it a accident that the first wld case occured that close to where the mangers of the Colorado Dept. of Wildlife facility released the exposed female mule deer back into the wild ? Thnk about it! Check out the USDA site Charts showing case in captive and wild populations. They show a "megatropolis" of cases surrounding that exact area. 
My point is that by ignoring History and opposing views will not solve the problem. What happened, happened! The important factor is how we can use the data to come up with a cure or preventative.
* I'm sure that the meat anti's would suggest distributing cervid condoms.* D,E, or M size.(deer,elk,moose)  
Thanks GST, I will do more research on other sites with more valid data.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

[quoteswift one final question before I end our discussion. Perhaps being based in the medical feild it will be interesting to hear your response. If the AIDS virus had been eradicated from the US in all but the city of say San Fansico do you believe the residents of this area should be able to leave at will and possibly spread this disease back into where it had been eradicated from? 
][/quote]

First off that is not even a possiblity to quarantine humans in a city for lifetimes. Also the AIDS epidemic of the 80's is a good analogy. Aids is really a contained disease in that the numbers of new infections are declining. That has happened not by locking up the infected and shooting them when they leave the compound. It has happened through education, preventative measures and medications. Much like Polio being a dead illness again those infected were not killed for intermingling, the masses were vaccinated which is what you should do to prevent your livestock from getting infected.

I can't wait to hear the spin you will throw to this post.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

ND eaglei. I was referencing the home site "Mad Cow" where the link you provided came from, it is listed at the top of the page. There is a lot of information suggesting the reaserch facilities have had a great deal to do with the spread of CWD. I will readily admit as a cattle rancher I am more informed on BSE than I am CWD. Too many of these "information sites" have a slanted biased source and content soley to further an agenda, much like this one. viewtopic.php?f=3&t=85649 



swift said:


> That has happened not by locking up the infected and shooting them when they leave the compound. It has happened through education, preventative measures and medications. Much like Polio being a dead illness again those infected were not killed for intermingling, the masses were vaccinated which is what you should do to prevent your livestock from getting infected.


You see the difference here in lies that you can not "educate" wild animals to not get the disease. It is ineffective to vaccinate (medications) wild animals because you simply will not get them all. So there in lies the need for "preventative measures" The agencies in charge of preventing these diseases such as brucellosis from spreading beyond it's contained area realize that indeed this often calls for these animals to be killed rather than being allowed the "right" to wander where ever they wish. As I said before this is not done soley for the benefit of the domestic animals which can be effecticvely vaccinated, but for the wild animals outside the infected area's boundries as well. And yes if the owners of the domestic animals do not engage in vaccinating their animals to prevent them from contracting brucellosis, they risk losing the ability to market their animals outside of the area that has lost its "free" status without going thru an expensive as well as intensive testing process. So as you can see from both the domestic and wild animals status there are many reasons not to simply say these wild animals that have a potential disease have the "right" to wander where ever they wish regardless of the consequences.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It looks like ranchers should be responsible for all bucellosis. Who brought the cattle with the infection? Now the people who brought it here want to stick their hands in the pocket of wildlife agencies to cure the problem they created.



> On the Origin of Brucellosis in
> Bison of Yellowstone National
> Park: A Review
> MARY MEAGHER
> ...


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> It looks like ranchers should be responsible for all bucellosis. Who brought the cattle with the infection? Now the people who brought it here want to stick their hands in the pocket of wildlife agencies to cure the problem they created.


Plainsman,where has anyone claimed they "want to stick their hands in the pockets of wildlife agencies" ??????? It appears you are getting "Dickitis" and posting things without any factual basis! :wink: What is being suggested is that ALL the appropriate agencies work together to insure that the gains made in controling diseases and that are being researched to develope controls for diseases so that we move in the right directions based on sound science and not biased rhetoric.

As to your study it seems there are many words such as "probably" and "apparently" being used in regards to how this disease originated.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

[quoteYou see the difference here in lies that you can not "educate" wild animals to not get the disease. It is ineffective to vaccinate (medications) wild animals because you simply will not get them all.][/quote]

You immunize your own livestock not the wild animals. You can educate an animal about as easily as trying to educate you GST. The preventative measures that may come into play would be....
1. removing your livestock from the winter range of the bison. 
2. put up a 12 foot fence to Prevent the infected bison from migrating into "your" land.
3. using medications proflactivly to prevent uptake of the infection.

I'm sure their are more that an experienced rancher like yourself could come up with but since a bullet is cheaper it will remain your measure of choice.

You should also see that I said any killing* outside of the law *is indeed poaching. Shoot all the coyotes you want to protect your sheep or calves or whatever there is no closed season. If you are having depredation issues then there are paths to follow. Shooting bison on the outskirts of Yellowstone without a legal okay or deer in a Mandan feedlot is poaching plain and simple.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Brucellosis was first identified serologically in bison
in the YNP population in 19 17 (Mohler 19 17). Because
later investigators suggested that brucellosis might have
existed in these bison for a long time and appeared to
have little population effect (Rush 1932b; Tunnicliff &
Marsh 1935; Meagher 1973a, 1973b; Meyer 1992;
Meyer & Meagher 1995), the National Park Service
questioned the origin of the Brucella organism as a native
or exotic entity. Reynolds et al. (1982) suggested
that brucellosis was present in North American wildlife
prior to the arrival of modern man.

Plainsman this is an exerpt from your article.The fact is there are theories regarding these diseases but few hard facts. If you wish to get past the blame game and carry on a conversation about the existing regulations designed to prevent disease transference risks and the effectiveness of them, practical effective methods to prevent disease risks and the methods of responses once a diseae risk is identified to contain and eradicate, I would welcome such a discussion. The cattle industry has invested millions of dollars as welll as tremendous effort to do their part. http://www.aphis.usda.gov/animal_health ... -facts.pdf
As a resultof the efforts by the cattle industry for the first time ever in 2008 all fifty states as well as Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands had acheived Brucellosis free status scince the programs inception in 1934. Scince then infection have resulted in a couple of states surrounding the Park resulting in the loss of this status for those states. Instead of playing a blame game, the cattle industry is working thru all appropriate agencies to continue to move forward in erradicating this disease which would benefit not only domestic livestock but wildlife as well. So you can continue to use the disease issue to further agendas or have a factual scientific unbiased discussion regarding it.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> blame game


Blame game? Your the one that thinks wildlife agencies are responsible. I suggest agriculture do their research, wildlife do their research, and keep in contact to avoid redundancy. Everyone needs to try solve disease problems.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift, in the winter of 1996-7 because of excessive snow and ice the Parks bison which were over populated within the park were starving to death, over 1300 bison died from starvation inside the Park. The remaining buffalo begin migrating out of the park to find food. When they begin roaming onto private lands the ranchers whose herds were being threatened tried going thru the "proper channels" and were stymied by individuals that thought these wild animals had the "right" to wander where ever they wished regardless of the potential consequences. The result was lawsuits that accomplished little and 1100 plus bison were shot after they left the park boundries. The management and protocals scince then have been able to prevent this kind of issues and appropriate agencies are working together to hopefully one day erradicate brucellosis from even this last hotspot here in the US. Fortunately the people involved in this process understand the potential devastating consequences if these animals are simply allowed to wander where ever they want as you claim they have the "right" to and that domestic animals are not "intruding" on the lands meant for wild animals but that the two with proper management can not only coexist but provide benefitial results to not only the animals but the enviroment they live in.

I tell you what, you pay my vet bill for bangs vaccinating my hfrs each year and maybe you'll have a better idea the committment the cattle industry makes outside the "bullet" you claim we look at as the "cheap answer" to these ongoing disease issues.

Plainsman please show were I make the claim "wildlife agencies are responsible". If they do not take into consideration all the consequences of their management policies and disregard other agencies attepmts to work together to acheive a mutualluy benefitial result,then indeed they should be held accountable. And when individuals use rhetoric and unfactual statements regarding disease issues to further their agendas they as well need to be held accountable.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> who is to be held liable and criminally responsible when a disease from a wild population infects a domestic herd?


That sure sounds like your looking for someones pocket, and so does this:


> If they do not take into consideration all the consequences of their management policies and disregard other agencies attepmts to work together to acheive a mutualluy benefitial result,then indeed they should be held accountable.


Wildlife agencies are doing everything they can to stop diseases and you want to insinuate their management practices cause it? Why, Money, money,money. It's not like ranchers don't already get bargain basement deals on grazing public land. Rancher who can't take advantage of that have a hard time competing. You talk about divisive, I have listened to ranchers who really dislike grain farmers (sod busters they still call them) because of all the government money they get. That cheap grazing is just as much help as support prices for wheat.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

Plainsman said:


> > who is to be held liable and criminally responsible when a disease from a wild population infects a domestic herd?
> 
> 
> That sure sounds like your looking for someones pocket, and so does this:
> ...



There now your have showed your stripes! Insult both the rancher who puts meat on your table and the farmer who supplies the rest of your food. You act as if the money at the agencies is yours. Its not, the money comes from all of us. 
Grow up a little! Or in your case alot! For a retired wildlife biologist you aren't very wise. 
Now go ahead and push your little boy Ignore Button! :lol:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > who is to be held liable and criminally responsible when a disease from a wild population infects a domestic herd?
> 
> 
> That sure sounds like your looking for someones pocket, and so does this:
> ...


quote]

Plainsman the first quote you posted was a question asked in response to swifts claim ranchers should be held financially as well as criminally responsible if a domestic animal infects a wild herd. In the case of Brucellosis we have been discussing it is the wild herd that continues to reinfect the domestic herd. Remember at one point ALL 50 states had acheived "free" status. So given the fact people like swift claim these animals should be allowed to wander where they will despite the consequences simply because they are wild animals the question was asked who then should be responsible for these animals infecting the domestic herd. You can't have it only one way. Ranchers do not want the govt to pay for these things, simply do their part in working with the cattle industry to ensure these infected wild animals do not reinfect the domestic herds, provide effective options to prevent this and eventually eradicate this disease. Yet sportsmen like swift who have no understanding of these issues immediately call for the ranchers head.

You seem to want cattle of public lands, but yet you never answered the question who will step up and accept responsibility when ungrazed forrestry lands over run with underbrush light on fire and tens of thousands of acres burn out of control as a result. If these cattle are removed from public lands then does the rancher have the right to remove wildlife from their private lands, swift claims the wildlife are the "true owners of the land" and ranchers are "intruding" on these wild animals homes. People that do not have agendas realize the mutual benefits proper management can provide all parties involved. It is the people with ideologies and a lack of understanding presented here that is most times the cause of the problem.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> You seem to want cattle of public lands,


Not at all. The buffalo are gone, and cattle are a good substitute. I think moderate grazing is good for the land. Even in good wildlife areas I would allow moderate grazing. I have seen so much abused land as I traveled Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, South Dakota, and North Dakota looking at federal land and recording avifauna on light, moderate, and heavily grazed public land.



> but yet you never answered the question who will step up and accept responsibility when ungrazed forrestry lands over run with underbrush light on fire and tens of thousands of acres burn out of control as a result. If these cattle are removed from public lands then does the rancher have the right to remove wildlife from their private lands


I didn't answer it because it isn't going to happen. I don't think that many bunny huggers have invaded the federal work force that they will try shut down grazing. Also, no I don't think ranchers have the right to remove wildlife. Let me assure you that I am a conservationist and not a preservationist. I put people before wildlife, but I am also aware that many will want to eradicate wildlife and graze land to the dirt just to make a buck. Responsible people who can look at things realistically will have to say when a rancher gets to remove anything, or when wildlife is endangering their livelihood. To many would kill everything right now. We have radicals on both sides. Like the rancher in Wyoming claiming to loose 200 lambs per year to eagles. Federal agents who watched him proved he was lying through his teeth. That was way back in 1972, but those things happen all the time. Perhaps some exaggerate those things when it comes to paying their taxes.

I think disease and it's control is in everyone's interest. I think wildlife agencies, agriculture agencies, privately funded organizations all need to work for the common good. I'm just playing the devils advocate because to me it appears your so one sided.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman, perhaps you have forgotten the conversations we had thru PMs regarding conservation and steps the ranching indusrty is taking in those regards as well as what Myself and my family has done in regards to conservation and wildlife. The rancher you speak of that "graze land to the dirt" will not be in business long. Times have changed significantly scince 1972. Perhaps you should stop basing your ideolgies off 40 year old actions. As to grazing not being totaly removed from Federal lands once again you should get a better handle on what is actually happening in todays world even right here in good old ND , you might just be surprised.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

> swift, in the winter of 1996-7 because of excessive snow and ice the Parks bison which were over populated within the park were starving to death, over 1300 bison died from starvation inside the Park. The remaining buffalo begin migrating out of the park to find food. When they begin roaming onto private lands the ranchers whose herds were being threatened tried going thru the "proper channels" and were stymied by individuals that thought these wild animals had the "right" to wander where ever they wished regardless of the potential consequences. The result was lawsuits that accomplished little and 1100 plus bison were shot after they left the park boundries.


So you admit these ranchers that killed 1100 bison broke the law, i.e. poached the bison, and you condone it because they thought their cattle might get infected. As nasty as it may seem bison starving to death is part of nature. Nature should be able to run it's course without zealots with rifles out there taking the law into their own hands. You call it stymied I call it allowing nature to run it's course. No person has a right to kill any wild animal outside of the law. I hope the killers of the 1100 were brought to justice. I still contend that wild animals have the right to roam just as they have for centuries before someone decided that a land deed allowed them to distrupt nature. Was an Enviornmental impact study performed to see if the management plan was reasonable? I'm all for sound scientific management practices but pulling the trigger on 1100 bison and passing it off as management is a bit off.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift, where did I admit that anyone broke the law? I really do not know wether athorities gave permission to take the actions required to prevent a possible disease issue from happening or not. If you are that interested research it and find out yourself. The point is that after this incident,agencies involved in the management of the parks bison realized that the very ideology you are claiming of allowing wild animals "have the right to roam as they did for centuries before someone decided a land deed allowed them to disrupt nature" is the very basis for these disease issues and the consequences that result from this sort of ill thought out policy. Regardless of how you may wish it you can not turn back time. Wildlife and progress have to find a balance. It is when agencies in charge do not realize this and adopt mentalities such as what you are suggesting that things such as the irradication of a disease is made impossible to accomplish. Luckily there are people that are more informed and able to think proactively involved in the regulation and management of disease issues. These people quietly accomplish their task while people like dick use rhetoric and ill informed people such as yourself to further their agendas.

It is clear no one wants to have a factual science based discussion regarding the accomplishments and safeguards addopted thru experience and knowledge that is meant to lessen disease risks so not much will be gained by continueingthis discussion . We will simply have to wait till once again dick takes some unrelated instance to what is happening here in ND and uses it to further lay the ground work for another run at accomplishing their agenda.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

[quoteIt is clear no one wants to have a factual science based discussion regarding the accomplishments and safeguards addopted thru experience and knowledge that is meant to lessen disease risks so not much will be gained by continueingthis discussion . We will simply have to wait till once again dick takes some unrelated instance to what is happening here in ND and uses it to further lay the ground work for another run at accomplishing their agenda.][/quote]

Isn't that exactally what happened by introducing the Brucellosis arguement into this topic? Shouldn't we be proactive and learn from what has happened in other places to help prevent it from happening here? Turning a blind eye to the experiences in the rest of the country certainly will not protect anyone here. Keep your head in the sand, the government is protecting you and OUR wildlife.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Swift please show where you or plainsman have brought any factual scientific contributions to this debate. Then please show ANYWHERE Dick has provided the regulations and restrictions placed on ND HF operators by the BofAH and the State Vet's office which have successfully kept the disease issue at bay for over 4 decades that these operations have existed here in ND. Of course you learn from others mistakes. That is EXACTLY what the agencies I mentioned who's duty it is to minimize disease risks to livestock and wildlife here in ND have and are doing. But to mention that does not help dicks agenda, so he posts incidents in other states that do not have the protocals or history of regulation that ND has to accomplish his goal. It's really not that difficult to see if you take the time to familiarize yourself with the agencies protecting our animals and the steps they have and are taking here in ND to continue to do so.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

gst, I don't think any of us, including you, have brought scientific material to the debate. I don't know maybe you did in some of your links. Now that I am retired it is harder to dig up peer reviewed literature. It takes an effort that I am not willing to spend time with. Retirement is to much fun, and I would rather hunt than look for literature. Thirty six years was enough. Now I a waiting for the ice to get thick enough to pull out my light ice house. Well, that and I have about kicked the pneumonia so I still nap a lot. zzzzzzzzz.


----------



## NDeaglei (Oct 30, 2010)

The more I read from Plainsman the more he sounds like Al Gore. He wants to force his agenda upon others but never has real facts.
If HF bothers you then don't pay to go there. Its a simple American concept.

When those federal agents sat and watched the Wyoming sheep rancher, how many Tax-Payer dollars were spent sitting there watching? 
Just the facts?

Also you claim it "happens all the time". 
Prove it! Documents? Case files? even a simple web link to support your claim. 
After all that case was forty years ago.

I believe that there is something called laziness involved here, or its just an excuse so the Truthful Facts about the subject won't be discussed.

*Facts get in the way when your real agenda is forcing your "ideals" upon good hard working, law abidding, paying your pension taxpayers.*

There is scientific material out there provided by various agencies and private organzations via the Gore invented internet.

*Plainsman:* *"I would rather hunt than look for literature. Thirty six years was enough." * 

If thrity six years was enough then shutup, or put some effort into documenting your claims.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman, I'm not trying to be an ***, but if you are not going to take the time to bring yourself up to date on the factual aspect of what the agencies that are in charge of regulating and preventing disease issues here in ND have and are doing to prevent it from happening, you should probably not be spouting off about the disease issue threat.

All thru the HF debate, you claimed disease was your main issue, and yet neither you nor Dick ever really looked at or posted the regulations and track record of the ND agencies that have successfully prevented it here in our state. Why? It would not further Dicks agenda. Fair, honest factual dialogue is what should take place when trying to create law and regulations, not emotional slanted rhetoric not related to the standards or issues we have here in ND. I would think you would be fairly proud and supportive of the State Board of Animal Health as well as the State Vet considering what they have prevented for all these years after looking at these threads Dick starts. At some point, maybe you could even accept the fact that the agencies and the animal ag industries here in ND just maybe doing something right. Can we simply rest on our laurels of success? Of course not, we need to remain ever vigilante and address concerns and issues quickly, directly and effectively. So far this has worked quite well here in ND.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> All thru the HF debate, you claimed disease was your main issue, and yet neither you nor Dick ever really looked at or posted the regulations and track record of the ND agencies


Well, they do as good a job as they can, but it's more dumb luck than skill that has prevented CWD from being here already. I see high fence and expensive animals as a big threat. Like I said it's not a question of will it happen it's only a question of when. You can take all the precautions you want, but all it takes is one slob who thinks he has an animal worth more than the risk and were all screwed. It doesn't take scientific literature to understand that only a realistic handle on human behavior.

This is an exercise in futility since were are the only two talking now and were not going to change each others mind.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> > All thru the HF debate, you claimed disease was your main issue, and yet neither you nor Dick ever really looked at or posted the regulations and track record of the ND agencies
> 
> 
> Well, they do as good a job as they can, but it's more dumb luck than skill that has prevented CWD from being here already.


I'm sure the folks on the State Board of Animal Health and the professionals at the State Vets office will be glad to know that people that do not have a clue are suggesting their efforts are simply "dumb luck". :roll:

Actually this has not been an "exercise in futility" as it has been made clear to those that might have followed people like your concerns over disease "as a retired biologist" that your ideologies are based on 40 year old history and that you have not taken the time to inform yourself as to what is currently happening with the agencies that protect this states livestock industry from the disease threat you are so concerned over. And they have seen Dick is unwilling to enter into a factual, unbiased discussion regarding this states successful precautionary regulations regarding this disease issue. As a result, hopefully people make the choice to inform themselves rather than relying on outdated idologies and those that are soley designed to further an agenda rather than bring the factual truth to light.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You sure twist things gst. You see the 40 year old thing was just the story about the rancher claiming lamb loss to golden eagles.

The just dumb luck is all of us. Sure the state agencies are doing as good as they can, but it's just dumb luck that CWD isn't here already. Dumb luck as in we are all lucky, but you keep spinning gst. It's what you do. You post nothing that doesn't further the agenda of grazing. Nothing suggest your an actual outdoorsman. Nothing about deer hunting, nothing about rifles, nothing about waterfowl, nothing but protect your personal interests. If it wasn't for the high fence you would not be here.

You started one post with "at least you admit it", then when I said nothing you get insulting to try keep people going. Rave on gst, rave on.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman not twisting anything, what I bring to the discussion is the facts of what the agencies protecting this state from disease issues and forming the regulations that do so have accomplished. Here in ND, not however many states that Dick continues to bring up that are unrelated in their protocals to prevent this to what ND has. You want to profess a concern over CWD but yet have not "taken the time" to inform yourself to the basics behind the disease or the fact it is ALREADY in the state and can not be linked to any HF operation. 
So pardon me if I do not believe the "concern" you claimed during the HF debate carries thru to much else.

And based on what I have seen posted during the HF discussion, the fact you may not believe me to be a "sportsman" simply because I do not post things you believe I should only proves how many of the people behind the HF measure think. Either agree with everything we say and hunt how we say you should or you are not a "sportsman". I'm not to concerned wether I meet the standards of people with ideologies such as this or not. My family and friends and I will simply enjoy what nature and the wildlife and hunting opportunities of this state have to offer and do what we choose to to preserve them without trying to force our beliefs or standards onto others. Perhaps you and Dick should try it too.


----------



## swift (Jun 4, 2004)

I give up and so should you Plainsman. Trying to get through to GST is like trying to get through to a 2 year old having a tantrum. He reminds me of a baby learning to talk words come out but they don't mean a thing. Then he will threaten to take is toys and go home. His entire agenda is to split sportsman and landowners. I'm done feeding into his hog trough.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

swift, wouldn't it have been easier just to hit your "ignore" button? :wink:

Actually I do need to spend a little bit more time getting ready to take some young kids out bow hunting the next couple of weekends, and then start getting things ready for our winter youth archery league where I'm a mentor, and then in between times make sure the fences are good around the 5 miles of trees we planted the last couple of years so the cattle stay out of them, a portion of the miles of trees my family and I have planted over the years that enabled us both to receive the soil conservation award for our county, then go out and fill the pheasant feeders for the 300 birds my sons raise each year that are wintering in the section of land we do not farm the cattails sloughs even when we could soley to provide winter habitat for them and other wildlife. Once that is done maybe the ice will be good enough to take my kids and their friends out ice fishing or hunting a few of the roosters they have worked hard raising or maybe go call a few coyotes.

Or I could spend my time posting things about deer hunting, rifles, or waterfowl so that people will then think I am a "sportsman". :roll:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Wow, good for you gst. Go enjoy yourself, and happy shooting, and oh ya, Merry Christmas to you too.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Just trying to keep the "sporstman police" on this site happy! :wink:


----------



## LT (Mar 12, 2008)

http://datcp.state.wi.us/press_release/ ... ?prid=2574

*11-18-2010
CWD Tests Negative for Deer On Northwest Wisconsin Hunting Preserve*
Contact: Donna Gilson
608-224-5130

MADISON -- Final chronic wasting disease results are negative for a white-tailed deer on a northwestern Wisconsin hunting preserve, State Veterinarian Dr. Robert Ehlenfeldt announced today. This means the deer did not have CWD.

The National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa, reported the test results late Tuesday. Ehlenfeldt released the quarantine that had been in place since Nov. 4 for the hunting preserve and an associated deer breeding farm.

NVSL pathologists ran tissue samples through what they described as "an exhaustive process using all diagnostic techniques available" and did not detect CWD.

The 3½-year-old buck was routinely tested after being killed by a hunter Oct. 18 in Bayfield County. Initial screening tests at the Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory were reported positive on Nov. 4. Following standard procedure, WVDL sent the samples to the national laboratory for confirmation. Screening tests for any disease are deliberately over-sensitive, so they do sometimes yield false positives.

DATCP does not name owners or locations of CWD-suspect animals unless final test results are positive. However, the hunting preserve and farm in question has a long record of negative CWD results, with nearly 130 animals tested in the past five years. Animal health regulations in Wisconsin require that all farm-raised deer and elk 16 months and older, including those in hunting preserves, must be tested for CWD when they die or are killed. There is no live test for CWD.

To date, more than 27,600 farm-raised deer have been tested in Wisconsin. Of those, 97 were positive for CWD on eight farms and hunting preserves -- 82 on a single Portage County operation, where legal action delayed destruction of the herd for more than three years after the initial case was found. One of the infected animals was an elk, the rest have been white-tailed deer. All infected herds have been destroyed. There has not been a new case of CWD detected in a farm-raised animal for two years.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Oops!
Here is a quote from Dicks initial post.

quote["Not good," said Mike Riggle a veterinarian, hunter and Wisconsin Conservation Congress member from Medford. "Everybody has been holding their breath for the last 8 years."

"Folks in the north had thought that this isn't our problem," said Riggle, who also serves as chairman of the CWD Committee of the Wisconsin Conservation Congress. "Now, boom, it is our problem."

Riggle said the likelihood of a false-positive was "very, very remote." ]end quote

What's the odds this fella and his group have the same agenda Dick and his group Norh Dakota Hunters for Fair Chase have? As a "veteranarian" he should know that false positives on these type tests are more common than he claims. If you are testing a number of animals and do not receive any "false positives" it is odd. Perhaps Dick should be a little more careful so his "facts" are not merely "false positives" .


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> he should know that false positives on these type tests are more common than he claims


I would be interested in reading up on that if you could send me a link, or a reference for literature. Deer are a state problem. I wish sometimes that things like this could be run through the national health laboratory. Much like the Center for Disease Control, but for animals.


----------



## eliptiabeht (Nov 5, 2009)

gst said:


> swift, wouldn't it have been easier just to hit your "ignore" button? :wink:
> 
> Actually I do need to spend a little bit more time getting ready to take some young kids out bow hunting the next couple of weekends, and then start getting things ready for our winter youth archery league where I'm a mentor, and then in between times make sure the fences are good around the 5 miles of trees we planted the last couple of years so the cattle stay out of them, a portion of the miles of trees my family and I have planted over the years that enabled us both to receive the soil conservation award for our county, then go out and fill the pheasant feeders for the 300 birds my sons raise each year that are wintering in the section of land we do not farm the cattails sloughs even when we could soley to provide winter habitat for them and other wildlife. Once that is done maybe the ice will be good enough to take my kids and their friends out ice fishing or hunting a few of the roosters they have worked hard raising or maybe go call a few coyotes.
> 
> Or I could spend my time posting things about deer hunting, rifles, or waterfowl so that people will then think I am a "sportsman". :roll:


GST,
It is plains to me that you are swiftly kicking their azzes in this debate!! :wink:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

eliptiabeht = thebaitpile

I always find names interesting. Just noticed yours.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Plainsman said:


> eliptiabeht = thebaitpile
> 
> I always find names interesting. Just noticed yours.


Can't slip nothing by the sportsmen police! :wink:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst said:


> Plainsman said:
> 
> 
> > eliptiabeht = thebaitpile
> ...


My first thought was of the old Supporting Members Forum, The Bait Pile.

gst, waiting to see your information on the frequency of "false positives". It would be interesting to see how good these tests really are. Is it just as common to get false negatives or just "false positives".


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> Can't slip nothing by the sportsmen police!





> My first thought was of the old Supporting Members Forum, The Bait Pile.


Yup the old thread on members form was the only thing I thought of. gst, you have not been around long enough to understand what we found interesting. It had nothing to do with baiting.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

plainsman, sometimes things are simply meant to be a lighthearted jab wether there is a relevance or not. Nothing more nothing less.

longshot as to that information I'm not trying to be an *** but most times unless people find out on their own they tend not to believe what they are told. If you indeed are curious have conversation with a vet you know does not have an agenda and get a professional answer.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> plainsman, sometimes things are simply meant to be a lighthearted jab wether there is a relevance or not. Nothing more nothing less.


Ya, I have to pay more attention to those little yellow guys at the end of a comment.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, here is a link that shows dependent upon the test used there can be a relatively high number of false positives. As well as the human factor in preparing the samples for testing in the IHC test and interpreting the results. 
http://www.caids-wi.org/IDEXX_cwd2.html 
Accoridng to the article Dick posted it states the Gold Standard (IHC) test was used. This is the most widely accepted test for accuracy but it can still generate false positive results as was shown in this case. Here is an exerpt from the above link.

How Golden is the Gold Standard?
The DNR and the WVDL often refer to the older IHC test as the Gold Standard - a test whose accuracy and reliability is beyond question. Thus we were surprised when reading a Colorado State CWD Surveillance study to come upon the following statement:

"Most reference tests used in validation studies are imperfect and are incorrectly termed "gold standards". Many authors have shown that the use of these imperfect reference tests for the calculation of sensitivity and specificity of new tests result in estimates that are biased (Staquet et al., 1981; Enoe et al., 2000). In the simple case, where the reference test is imperfectly sensitive but perfectly specific (e.g., bacterial, viral, or parasite isolation), the sensitivity and specificity of the new test will likely both be underestimated."

This same study report also explains the difficulty in properly interpreting IHC results:

" . . . The IHC is time consuming and requires specialized technical skills. Furthermore, IHC interpretation is subjective and can be influenced by prior knowledge of the case and associated results from the screening tests. Several new rapid screening tests are being validated to complement available techniques for the purpose of large scale screening for these diseases. Some of these tests have been validated and are currently being applied in disease control programs in several countries. Other tests are currently being validated for both screening and confirmation of these diseases.

All of these tests require the collection of appropriate clinical specimens, mainly the appropriate obex site of brain tissue, or the region proximal to the cortex in lymph nodes. Selection of the appropriate clinical specimens (tissue type, amount of tissue collected, etc) is an essential component if these tests are to have good diagnostic accuracy. Furthermore, it is known that the prion agent of these diseases tends to be unevenly distributed in the tissue specimens."


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Thanks for the post gst. I read the site you posted along with a few others. Whenever I hear someone say something is the "end all be all" or "gold standard" I know they are doing nothing more than setting themselves up for failure when it comes to any kind of testing. One of the interesting things I found was the fact that these results are dependent on what antibodies are used in the test. The beginning of the article you posted does make it sound like the IHC is still the better test and showed the IDEXX to give poor results. Another article from the USDA that I found did talk about the IHC not finding a test positive because of "low levels of infectivity and therefore the sensitivity of USDA's routine IHC test might not have been sufficient to detect the disease". This comes from a more recent article to the one you posted, but is still 5 years old, http://www.usda.gov/documents/vs_bse_ihctestvar.pdf

I don't think there is any such test that is 100% correct 100% of the time and I don't think anyone is claiming that here. But we must use the best we have at the time along with parallel tests and subsequent testing to validate the original. I also do believe the IHC test has improved since the 2003/2004 article you posted, most notably with the antibody selections being made. The home page of the site you posted claims; "Fact 3. Accurate testing is available to determine with a high degree of accuracy whether or not a harvested deer has CWD", but does not state what test that is. Are they referring to the IHC or maybe a Western blot test, it doesn't say. These are interesting articles to read and I'm sure we can all agree that we need to continue to look for better testing and management procedures.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

There is a great deal to be yet learned about these TSE's. Science has come a long way regarding them in the last few years particularily after the BSE issue. But we can not afford to have "facts" being circulated that are not based on sound science and truth regarding these diseases. Nor should these "facts" be used to further agendas that are honestly not tied to irradicating or furthering the study of these diseases. The cattle industry has dealt with this in regards to groups using mistruths, disingenuous statements and outright lies regarding BSE to further agendas to end meat consumption and animal ag based on ideologies and not science. What we saw and will probably continue to see happening with CWD in the HF debate was not any different from the stand point CWD is merely being used as a tool much like BSE was to accomplish an agenda, and the people using the tool care little about the tool itself which is evident in their willingness to be less than forthwright and honest about it.


----------

