# CWD Found in Southwestern North Dakota Deer



## nodakoutdoors.com (Feb 27, 2002)

CWD Found in Southwestern North Dakota Deer

North Dakota Game and Fish Department officials were notified this morning by the U.S. Department of Agriculture's Veterinary Services that a sick-looking mule deer taken last fall in western Sioux County has tested positive for chronic wasting disease. This is the first time CWD has been detected in a North Dakota animal.

Dr. Dan Grove, Game and Fish Department wildlife veterinarian, said a hunter in unit 3F2 shot an adult buck that did not appear to be healthy. "As we do with our targeted surveillance efforts, we collected the sample to test for CWD and bovine tuberculosis," Grove said.

The Game and Fish Department's targeted surveillance program is an ongoing, year-round effort that tests animals found dead or sick.

"We have been constantly monitoring and enhancing our surveillance efforts for CWD because of its presence in bordering states and provinces," said Greg Link, Game and Fish Department assistant wildlife division chief.

In addition to targeted surveillance, the department annually collects samples taken from hunter-harvested deer in specific regions of the state. In January, more than 3,000 targeted and hunter-harvested samples were sent to a lab in Minnesota. As of today, about two-thirds of the samples have been tested, with the one positive result. The remaining one-third will be tested over the next month.

Link said monitoring efforts have intensified in recent years and all units have been completed twice throughout the entire state.

"The deer population in unit 3F2 is above management goals, and hunter pressure will continue to be put on the population in that unit again this fall," Link said. "We are going to be aggressive with licenses and disease surveillance in that unit."

Since the department's sampling efforts began in 2002, more than 14,000 deer, elk and moose have tested negative for CWD.

CWD affects the nervous system of members of the deer family and is always fatal. Scientists have found no evidence that CWD can be transmitted naturally to humans or livestock.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Was that deer a year old? If so it wasn't infected very long and didn't travel very far. Which leads to 2 questions. Where was the original source of infection? (Since CWD does not demonstrate spontaneously.) And what other deer were exposed to this one?

Last Thursday I had a chance to visit with a biologist from USGS and asked him what the dollar cost on CWD would be. He answered that conservatively the Feds spend $30,000,000 plus on monitoring and testing. That amount does not include individual state expenses nor a calculation for the the loss of wildlife. He went on to say "that when the conservation movement started and developed, sportsmen thought a viable deer herd was assured into the future. And that may not be the case."

Map as of Jan. 2009. Add in Missouri and North Dakota.


----------



## HUNTNFISHND (Mar 16, 2004)

No real suprise here, considering we were surrounded by it. More then likely came from Wyoming or South Dakota. It was only a matter of time. It isn't the end of the world, but will be interesting to see how the GNF handles it. Obviously more monitering and testing needs to be done in this area. I just hope they don't go overboard like Wisconsin and try to wipe out the entire herd.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Hey Dick, thanks, you won me a beer. Once this became public I bet a fella that within the first 5 posts you would be on here making an insinuation designed to help your measure.

The article states it was a "mature buck" yet you ask if it was a year old and insinuate that if it was, the cause must have come from somewhere local because "CWD does not demonstrate spontaneously" and the deer could not have traveled far. You can't seem to help yourself:eyeroll:

There is not enough known about TSE's for someone like yourself to state they do not "demonstrate spontaneously". In regards to BSE in cattle there is a scientific line of thinking that it indeed can demonstrate spontaneously much like a cancer or other disease. The scientific community simply does not know for sure.

If you want to claim CWD comes from these captive facilities, how do you explain the areas on your map that have wild occurances with no captive occurances any where nearby?

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fusea ... 4261400ea2

Here is a page of a study sanctioned By RMEF, B&C and the MDF on CWD provided on another site in regards to this subject. There is some useful information in this study, but as is often the case, these "scientific" reports often end with the sponsoring orgs. ideologies creeping into them and this one is no different. However even after insinuating CWD may have been transferred from a captive herd to the wild, they admit that it really isn't known nor may never be known if that was indeed the case or if it was the other way around. In the case of this study and others, there are presumptive responses based off assumptive research being made. There are simply very few "cold hard facts" regarding these TSE diseases to do otherwise. The scientific community realizes this, perhaps you should as well when you attempt to further your measure's agenda thru insinuations.


----------



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

It took a bit to get an answer back from NDGF. The CWD buck is thought to be apx. 2.5 years old. That is not an old deer.

So the 2 questions of where was the original source of infection and what other deer were exposed to this one, are viable questions. NDGF has reliable data on deer migration distances from the Dawson and Lonetree WMA studies. Somewhere in the radius of that CWD deer's travel there is a source of CWD infection. West Virginia and New Mexico both thought their CWD infections arose from private shipments of infected animals.

It is easy to see from the USGS map that CWD has tracked high fence. Because almost all wild infections are adjacent to contaminated private facilities. However, many contaminated private facilities show no adjacent infections in the wild population surrounding them.

If the ND case was a transfer through the wild from the Black Hills there is a long trail of diseased deer from point A to point B that everyone has missed. Possible but unlikely.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Dick, http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fusea ... t.overview

Scroll down on this site to The History of CWD. The second paragraph states and I quote"It may be possible that CWD is a spontaneous TSE that arose in deer in the wild or in captivity" and further down the paragraph "Spontaneous CWD may have happened in deer though it is difficult to see how this could be proven." Perhaps this explains your map that shows wild infections nowhere near captive infections (New Mexico, Utah, West Virginia) ??????

From the first link I posted this study states they simply do not know if CWD was passed from captive herds to the wild or from the wild herds to a captive one. Yet you continue to insinuate you know.

This is from the scientific study sponsored by the RMEF, the Mule Deer Foundation , and the Boone and Crocket club. It appears that their own science is suggesting that indeed CWD may very well be spontaneous, but it is difficult to prove.

You continue to come on these sites trying to insinuate something the very orgs. your group NDH for FC loves to quote in your measure against HF, have admitted can not be proven in their own scientific study on CWD. If you continue to do this at some point it ceases to be disingenuous and becomes flat out lying, which is very similar to how HSUS goes about accomplishing their agendas. :eyeroll: Perhaps the nonhunting public you are selling this bill of goods to will sit back and accept these insinuations as the truth, but clearly this study shows they are not.


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

Another chuckle for the morning. The CWD Alliance started by the Boone and Crockett, RMEF and the Mule deer foundation has a number of partners and sponsors, one of which is the self same USGS Wildlife Health Lab that Dick used for his information. http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fusea ... b4712efa80. Sportsmen should be aware that this is not a one sided argument but sportsmens groups and federal and state agencies are working together and should be working together.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Sportsman groups and state and Federal agencies should be working together on disease issues. However when they start misrepresenting their own science and studies as Dick continually does in his attempt to further a personal ethical agenda is when the line is crossed. If this is how the sponsors of this org are willing to go about furthering their agenda on these public internet sites, imagine what disingenuous "facts" they maybe sharing with the nonhunting public in private.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,

Since you have discovered the word "disingenuous", you have used in in almost every post. You are starting to sound like a represenative or a senator. Change words once in a while, or people may think that you are not sincere.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim, I'm trying to be polite and use a somewhat softer word than the alternative. Tell you what, get your fellow sponsors to quit "misrepresenting the truth" and I won't have to use the word anymore!!!!!

If you want me to stop using this word, tell your fellow sponsors to quit being as "dishonest" as the likes of Pelosi or Reid when they are selling a bill of goods to people.

If you think I'm starting to sound like a Congressman, perhaps I could sound like Rep. Boehner and reply something along these lines "Are they telling you the truth, HELL NO" or perhaps "SHAME on you for LYING" :wink:


----------



## indsport (Aug 29, 2003)

When I said sponsors, I was noting only those organization associated with the CWD website, not the HF issue. Could you point out to me how are the Boone and Crockett Club, the Mule Deer foundation, state agencies and the USGS are misrepresenting the science?


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

"misrepresenting the truth" Hmmmmm Kinda like calling shooting a critter in a pen hunting?


----------



## eliptiabeht (Nov 5, 2009)

Bob Kellam said:


> "misrepresenting the truth" Hmmmmm Kinda like calling shooting a critter in a pen hunting?


So do we also need to pass a law for what Dick and his cronies are doing? Do we need to pass a law for every time someone lies to us. There wouldn't be a Democrat walking the streets if that was the case!! :rollin:


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

eliptiabeht said:


> Bob Kellam said:
> 
> 
> > "misrepresenting the truth" Hmmmmm Kinda like calling shooting a critter in a pen hunting?
> ...


Sorry....but the only liars I know are all members of the party of NO. :rollin:


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

indsport, I don't believe I ever stated these groups are "misrepresenting the science". I did state that often times when a group sponsors scientific studies their ideologies often enter into the results of the science. It happens quite often regardless which side of an issue you are on.

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fusea ... 4261400ea2 This page of a study done by these groups states it is simply not known wether captive elk or wild elk are the cause of transmission. Yet Dick constantly claims it is captive elk transmitting it to wild.

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fusea ... 4261400ea2 This page states CWD may very well demonstrate spontaneously. Yet Dick in this thread claims that it can not, and insinuates it must have come from a local source ie..HF.

It is the SPONSORS OF THIS MEASURE that have chosen to continueally "misrepresent the science" or sat back and allowed it to be misrepresented in their attempts to further this measure.

jhegg, as a sponsor of this measure, based off this study, do you believe what Dick constantly insinuates on these sites is the truth and is factually representing the science?????

Bob, you would have to admit that I have stated repeatedly on this site and others that personally I don't feel a HF operation would give me what I need to take from the experience to call it hunting. However that does not mean it may not for someone that is not equal to yours or others hunting abilities, so who are we to tell them what they need to take from the hunting experience to have it live up to our individual standards? You may believe it is hunting to drive out to Mt. hop out of the pickup and kill a bull elk as they cross a road during migration, the archery backpack hunter that hikes in 20 miles for 10 days shoots an elk and packs it out on his back might not. Who gets to make that distinction??????


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,



> You may believe it is hunting to drive out to Mt. hop out of the pickup and kill a bull elk as they cross a road during migration, the archery backpack hunter that hikes in 20 miles for 10 days shoots an elk and packs it out on his back might not. Who gets to make that distinction??????


That's easy. The elk. In your scenario, he has an opportunity to escape!

Jim


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Dick said,



> Last Thursday I had a chance to visit with a biologist from USGS and asked him what the dollar cost on CWD would be. He answered that conservatively the Feds spend $30,000,000 plus on monitoring and testing.[/


There are just too many federal employees involved in this ballot measure to ignore. First there was Senate Bill 2254 in 2007. Two out of the six who testified were federal.

No.1 David Alan Brandt, federal biologist for the United States Geological Survey. President of the North Dakota wildlife federation in 2008. Through the Freedom Of Information Act he brought from his work place a pile of paper that wasn't science as much as it was anything he could scrounge up against high fence. It was all about out of state happenings that he shares with Dick and then Dick posts it here. Always trying to illuminate the CWD issue into uncerntainty among people so they, like nervous cattle can be stampeded with just the right spark. The USGS collects "data". Do they have real science that would support the elk ranchers? Probably. But don't count on any of these guys to bring it forward.
No.2 Mike McEnroe, retired federal biologist for USFWS and current lobbyist for the wildlife society. (A group of "highly intelligent wildlife professionals) Mike was the last to testify at Sen. Bill 2254. He knew the cause was lost so he said some wierd things. "Does ND want to be know as a place where people come to kill animals." And he compared banning high fence to seat belt laws and smoking bans.

Two years ago we had fair chase one. Within the 30 sponsers were 4 federal agents.

No.1 Thomas Sklebar, retired USGS, 2008 director for the NDWF and member of the wildlife society.
No.2 Lloyd Jones, director for Audubon USFWS, member of the wildlife society and former director of the NDG/F
No.3 Bruce Hanson, moderator here, retired USGS and member of the wildlife society. (A group of "highly intelligent wildlife professionals)
No.4 David Alan Brandt, federal biologist for the United States Geological Survey. President of the North Dakota wildlife federation in 2008.

Now we have moved on to fair chase two. Thomas Sklebar and Bruce Hanson have dropped out but have been replaced with more federal agents.

No.1 David Alan Brandt, federal biologist for the United States Geological Survey. President of the North Dakota wildlife federation in 2008.
No.2 No.2 Lloyd Jones, director for Audubon USFWS, member of the wildlife society and former director of the NDG/F 
No.3 Keith Trego, Natural Resources Trust, member of the wildlife society and former director of NDG/F
No.4 Erik Fritzel, wildlife society
No.5 Brandon Mason, Mule Deer Foundation, former Game and Fish

So far we have a zero sum game. Like seat belt laws and smoking bans can we expect the fedgov to keep the pressure on? They started this back in 2004. When is this harrassment? We have a group desperately trying to sell itself as a "grassroots sportsmens organization" or the fair chase committee. It is not.

How much more time and effort is going to be wasted? Why can't people just let the the Board of Animal Health, Game and Fish and other state agencies do their jobs? It seems we have two factions in the federal government. The first were for raising domestic elk bison deer and other non-traditional livestock and now a handful who are against it.

Bob Kellam said,



> [misrepresenting the truth" Hmmmmm Kinda like calling shooting a critter in a pen hunting?[//quote]
> 
> So now we have a psuedo hunting organization saying this is psuedo hunting.
> 
> ...


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim when I asked the question about who determines what is "hunting" in everyones eyes, I was assuming you would realize that I was referencing the fact that many people have differing oppinions of what is "hunting" and many would believe "road hunting" to not be ethical "hunting". But you seem to want to make this soley about HF, so answer the other question I asked if you would.

Do you believe what your cosponsor Dick is constantly insinuating on these sites is the truth and factually represents the science on this issue?????

As a sponsor of this measure please accept the responsibility of answering this question.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg said:


> Gabe,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Jim I thought about your repsonse tonite while at our youth archery league. You apparently now have the elk thinking and making the distinction between what is hunting and what is not. This sounds just like a PETA or HSUS response that elk are capable of deductive thinking!!! You guys (NDH for FC) are starting to sound and act more like these anti hunting groups HSUS and PETA all the time!! :eyeroll:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,

I believe that a big game animal I hunt must have a chance to escape. That means "not fenced in". I don't understand why you have such a difficult time understanding that concept.

By the way, PETA and HSUS don't approve of my killing an animal for any reason. Yet, you still try to lump me in with them. Now, who is being "disingenuous".

Jim


----------



## Bob Kellam (Apr 8, 2004)

Dwight

I am proud of my involvement in the past in trying to get this issue in front of ND voters. I am no longer involved with this on an organizational level, just a personal one. Many of the people still involved with the measure i consider friends and I will continue to try and protect and preserve fair chase hunting, simply because that is the way I believe it shoud be. Doesn't make my beliefs any better than yours we just disagree in context.

Voters should get a chance to decide this issue that is the way it is supposed to work in our system. If you educate the public (voters) better than the other side you will win.

Cheers!


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

First Bob Kellam says,



> misrepresenting the truth" Hmmmmm Kinda like calling shooting a critter in a pen hunting?[//


Then Bob Kellam said,



> [quoteVoters should get a chance to decide this issue that is the way it is supposed to work in our system. If you educate the public (voters) better than the other side you will win.
> ]


Bob, So this is how you are just trying to educate the public???? What was line one? Fact, science or incitement? Those little drive-by quips worked well in the past at shaping public opinion, didn't they?

Part of the problem with the media is that negatives and crisis attract bigger ratings than positives. The cervid growers have the law and science on their side so your side pounds the table with emotion. Your side doesn't want to wage these debates in a formal setting such as the legislature. Instead you want it to be an issue of public opinion. Trial by media.

Bob Kellam



> If you educate the public (voters) better than the other side you will win.


Is that what Dick Monson is trying to do? He now insinuates this CWD infected deer found in ND must have had contact with a game farm.

EXTRORDINARY CLAIMS DEMAND EXTRORDINARY EVIDENCE

Dick Monson reported earlier



> Last Thursday I had a chance to visit with a biologist from USGS and asked him what the dollar cost on CWD would be. He answered that conservatively the Feds spend $30,000,000 plus on monitoring and testing.


Thirty million dollars. Thats 30,000,000. Was the money used for monitering and testing or shuffleing paper?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

jhegg said,



> By the way, PETA and HSUS don't approve of my killing an animal for any reason. Yet, you still try to lump me in with them. Now, who is being "disingenuous".


Jim, If you pm me your e-mail address, I will send you the correspondence between Roger Kaseman and the humane society. If this measure were to pass it would give the humane society the needed confidence to propose their goal. A federal animal cruelty bill. Jim, it is in the e-mails.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg said:


> Gabe,
> 
> I believe that a big game animal I hunt must have a chance to escape. That means "not fenced in". I don't understand why you have such a difficult time understanding that concept.
> 
> ...


Jim, I support your individual right to make that decision. What I don't support is a small group taking away the ability to make that decision from others which is what this measure does. Once you start, where will you stop? Given what is taking place in Washington now it's hard to tell just how far some people will go and what means they will use to create laws to take away the right of someone to make an individual personal choice.

As you said,PETA and HSUS do not approve of killing an animal for any reason or by any means. To them wether that animal is in the wild or in a fence makes no difference. What is being compared is how your group, NDH for FC, is going about trying to achieve your agendas. By "informing" the public with flat out lies ( not using the word disingenuous as you requested anymore) your group is very similar to what HSUS and PETA do.

You have failed to answer the question I asked so I will ask it for a third time. Do you believe what Dick Monson is insinuating on this site in regards to CWD and HF is the TRUTH and factually represents the science relating to CWD??? Once again, as a cosponsor of this measure you are responsible for what your other co sponsors say and do, so please address this question.



Bob Kellam said:


> Dwight
> 
> I am proud of my involvement in the past in trying to get this issue in front of ND voters. I am no longer involved with this on an organizational level, just a personal one. Many of the people still involved with the measure i consider friends and I will continue to try and protect and preserve fair chase hunting, simply because that is the way I believe it shoud be. Doesn't make my beliefs any better than yours we just disagree in context.
> 
> ...


Bob, do you believe these voters should be educated with the truth? I believe you were the one that posted this study on FBO. So let me ask you as a fomer sponsor, do you believe what Dick is insinuating in this thread particualrily is the truth and factually represents the science of this study you provided?

If people like you and jhegg as supporters and fellow sponsors are not willing to hold these individuals representing this measure responsible to be truthful in presenting this to the public who will? If people like you are unwilling to require that the information that is shared with the public in pursueing this measure is factual and the truth, it speaks volumes as to how far this group will go to further this personal agenda.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,



> Once again, as a cosponsor of this measure you are responsible for what your other co sponsors say and do, so please address this question.


Bull! I am not responsible for what other people say and do any more than you are.



> Do you believe what Dick Monson is insinuating on this site in regards to CWD and HF is the TRUTH and factually represents the science relating to CWD???


My objection to HF is not CWD, I have already stated what my objection is. If you have issues with what Dick (or anyone else, for that matter) says, take it up with them. I won't join in this pissing match.



> What I don't support is a small group taking away the ability to make that decision from others which is what this measure does.


A "small group" is not taking anything away from anybody. Our "small group" is gathering signatures on a petition to put an initiated measure on the ballot. The voters of ND will decide the outcome - not me, not Dick, not you. If we get enough signatures, the voters of ND will decide the issue. That's all there is to it.

Jim


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dwight,
Thanks for the e-mails. Although I haven't studied them all yet, I have not found anything objectionable in them so far.
Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim,When you signed your name to be a sponsor to get enough people to begin gathering signatures, you accepted the responsibility that goes with that wether you want to admit that or not. And that responsibility should have been to make sure your FELLOW SPONSOR are not lying in what "facts" they use to further YOUR MEASURE. These other sponsors are speaking on your behalf in regards to this measure. I found it interesting you talked completely around the question I asked wether what Dick is posting is the truth and a factual representation of the science of CWD. IT IS A SIMPLE YES OR NO ANSWER!!!!!!!!!!! Your unwillingness to answer this question is answer enough for any open minded individual. It is now clear as a sponsor you and others are willing to sit back and allow your fellow sponsors to LIE to further your personal agenda and this measure. There's something to be proud of.

If it was not for this small group of people initiating this measure, NO ONE would be trying to take the ability to make this choice away from anyone. So in reality yes you are taking this away. Continue to make excuses and pass the buck all you want, sitting back and allowing your fellow sponsors to lie to further this measure says alot about this groups principals. You couldn't get the legislature to do it because you couldn't get enough hunters to join your campaign so now you open it up to the nonhunting public of which you KNOW there is a percentage of antihunting people to further your agendas. Combine that with the LIES sponsors are telling about this issue to the remaining nonhunting public and there it is in a nutshell. That right there is something to be proud of as a hunter here in ND. :eyeroll:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,

I signed on as a sponsor of this initiated measure because I do not believe that shooting a big game animal in a pen is hunting. That is what I tell people when I am gathering signatures. Most of them agree.

I didn't sign on to debate CWD. I do not know enough about CWD to debate it. For what it's worth though, I'd put my money on Dick's interpretation before I would put it on yours.

I will not allow people like you will to decide if I am responsible for what other people do or say. I am not! I accept responsibility only for what I do and what I say. If you don't like that - too bad.

Jim


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

jhegg wrote,



> Thanks for the e-mails. Although I haven't studied them all yet, I have not found anything objectionable in them so far.


So then you do not object??? Back in 2008 durring fair chase one Roger Kaseman said many times, "we" the fair chase committee will not accept any help from the humane society. He looked right into the cameras and peoples eyes, knowing at the very same time he was secretly negotiating with the humane society. And you do not object????

In March 2008 at the Jamestown public forum Roger was asked this question specifically. Some of the sponsers of the measure were there.

No.1 Dick Monson
No.2 David Alan Brandt
No.3 Sandy Barnes
No.4 Lloyd Jones
No.5 Gary Masching

The question is, "what did they know and when did they know it?"

Jim, Have you ever met Roger Kaseman?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

jhegg said:


> Gabe,
> 
> I signed on as a sponsor of this initiated measure because I do not believe that shooting a big game animal in a pen is hunting. That is what I tell people when I am gathering signatures. Most of them agree.
> 
> ...


Jim, if that is how you feel and believe hunting should be, fine, live your life accordingly. Why should your personal veiw be forced onto others? To believe everyone must conform to your ideologies is a bit arrogant and egotistical.

Jim, you wouldn't happen to be Popmeroys press guy are you? Here's his basic defense of his position. I supported the HC bill because personally I believe it will be a lifesaver for ND's. Although I don't know enough about what is in the HC bill to debate it, I put my money on Obama, Pelosis and Reids reputation based on their interpretation of this bill. I don't accept the responsibility that when I chose to represent the people of ND I would be responsible for sitting back and allowing my fellow congressmen and the people I ALLOW TO SPEAK FOR ME to lie to the public and not step up to correct it. 
Based your above "disclaimer" now who is sounding like a congressman?

Jim it is not MY interpretation that is what is proving Dick is lying, it is that of this study. The study states CWD can demonstrate spontaneously, Dick states it can not. Someone is lying. Is is the scientific study or one of your fellow sposors of the HF measure? So one last time based on the information on the pages of the study I shared that Bob, one of your supporters, put out there as the word on CWD, do you believe what Dick Monson, your fellow sponsor, is saying is the truth and accurately represents the science relating to CWD? Yes or No.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst said:


> jhegg said:
> 
> 
> > The study states CWD can demonstrate spontaneously, Dick states it can not. Someone is lying. Is is the scientific study or one of your fellow sposors of the HF measure?


Nobody has been able to prove that CWD can be spread by spontaneous. For you to elude it does gst is poor at best. There are many things in the scientific world that can't be proven, but are taken as the only possibility and therefore used as the guideline.

You want to talk about "disingenuous", how about trying to buy the support of handicap groups with free elk hunts?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Longshot,



> You want to talk about "disingenuous", how about trying to buy the support of handicap groups with free elk hunts?


You are going to have to be more specific. Please clarify.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, take note of Dicks claim and given his history on this issue what he is trying to insinuate.



Dick Monson said:


> Was that deer a year old? If so it wasn't infected very long and didn't travel very far. Which leads to 2 questions. Where was the original source of infection? (Since CWD does not demonstrate spontaneously.)
> 
> Now longshot take alook at this page from the study that has been refered to previously in this discussion. Please note that it is not me that is concluding CWD may demonstrate spontaneously but rather the study.
> 
> ...


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

When something cannot be proven of disproven then it is still considered possible. This study states it could be possible, but only due to the fact they have not been able to prove one way or the other. It would be nice to know for sure. This is one reason people would rather take the safe route until then. I still think a double fence with adequate distance between the two would be appropriate. We do know that it can be transferred from animal to animal contact. I do think additional measures need to be taken in order to safeguard against those private herds that have tested positive and possibly all for that matter. You cannot claim spontaneous transmission by a study that says it could be possible as you did above. Since it has been proven to spread by contact and not by spontaneous transmission you can only claim the previous.

DG I don't need to clarify. I know who, what, and when personally, but will not name any names on this forum.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

For Christ sake longshot read what is wrote. I'M NOT THE ONE SUGGESTING CWD CAN DEMONSTRATE SPONTANEOUSLY, THE STUDY DONE BY RMEF, THE MULE DEER FOUNDATION AND B&C IS !!!!!!!!!

In regards to BSE in cattle, the bovine form TSE, there is also a line of scientific thinking suggesting that indeed these atypical TSE's can demonstrate spontaneously. So this study is not alone in that line of thinking.

This study states it possibly can, Dick states unequivically it can't. Someone is lying. Dick got caught making a statement that your groups own science doesn't backup and NO ONE has the balls to admit it. Unless you guys don't want to believe your own study.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

How dense are you gst. The study does not state that is can spread spontaneous. It says it may be possible, that is it. You are the one trying to claim that the study says is can. Nowhere does it say it can, IT MAY BE POSSIBLE. There is a big difference, but you are the one reading further into what is stated.



> It may be possible that CWD is a spontaneous TSE that arose in deer in the wild or in captivity and has biological features promoting transmission to other deer and elk.........Spontaneous CWD may have happened in deer though it is difficult to see how this could be proven.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dwight,



> So then you do not object???


I said I had not studied them all yet. I will let you know what conclusion I come up with.



> Jim, Have you ever met Roger Kaseman?


Yes I have. In fact, I spent this last weekend with him at the Grand Forks home show collecting petition signatures. He had some interesting stories about you too.

But, to get back to the e-mails. I will look at them this week and see what I think they say. As I mentioned, I will let you know what conclusions I come up with from them.

Jim


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,



> Jim, if that is how you feel and believe hunting should be, fine, live your life accordingly. Why should your personal veiw be forced onto others? To believe everyone must conform to your ideologies is a bit arrogant and egotistical.


I do live my life accordingly. As far as "forcing" my personnel views on others - I am not "forcing" anything on anyone. I am gathering signatures on an initiated measure to put this issue before the voters of ND. It is not my decision to make. But, if we collect sufficient signatures, the voters of ND will decide this issue. If offering the voters of ND an opportunity to voice their opinion on this issue is "arrogant and egotistical", then so be it.



> Jim, you wouldn't happen to be Popmeroys press guy are you? Here's his basic defense of his position. I supported the HC bill because personally I believe it will be a lifesaver for ND's. Although I don't know enough about what is in the HC bill to debate it, I put my money on Obama, Pelosis and Reids reputation based on their interpretation of this bill. I don't accept the responsibility that when I chose to represent the people of ND I would be responsible for sitting back and allowing my fellow congressmen and the people I ALLOW TO SPEAK FOR ME to lie to the public and not step up to correct it.
> Based your above "disclaimer" now who is sounding like a congressman?


Well Gabe, my "vote" won't commit the people of ND to this issue. It gives them the opportunity to express their own opinion. I will accept responsibility for my opinion that "canned hunts" or "high fence killing" is not hunting nor is it sporting or ethical. I will not; however, accept any responsibility for other peoples opinions. You do not seem to understand that I am not "representing" the people of ND on this issue - I am giving them a chance to represent themselves. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

Jim


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Longshot wrote,



> This is one reason people would rather take the safe route until then. I still think a double fence with adequate distance between the two would be appropriate. We do know that it can be transferred from animal to animal contact.


Then you would be in favor of a double fence around Yellow Stone National Park in Wyoming. The elk and buffalo there have brucellosis. The only infected herds in the United States. All private herds that contract this disease have been depopulated. The elk that the USFWS are feeding at Jackson hole are known to be infected with CWD and brucellosis. Should they have a double fence also? There are zoos everywhere with deer, elk and buffalo. Do you think they should be required to build a double fence?

The Dakota zoo in Bismarck is located along the river bottom. Wild deer live side by side. The Dakota Zoo also has moose. They can get diseases from wild deer. The CWD infected deer found in Souix County is not that far from the Dakota Zoo.

Longshot, Who do you think should pay for all this double fence?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, I'll make this real simple, this study and Dick are saying 2 different things. If the study says it is "possible" is Dick lying when he claims it is not?????? A fairly simple question no one has the balls to answer.

Jim, if it were not for you sponsors initiating this measure the voters would not be addressing this issue so in fact your groups IS attempting to force your views onto others thru the use of this measure. That is not that hard to understand. You want to use the ND voters to further your agenda and you are allowing your fellow sponsors to lie when they are making statements to the public regarding this measure. If you are comfortable in allowing that to happen, it says pretty much everything that needs to be said about NDH for FC. What you are representing Jim, is the "facts" these voters will use to make this decision. And if you allow your fellow sponsorts to lie when presenting these "facts", as a sponsor allowing this to happen without speaking up you are responsible. I think most people realize this. You have been given the opportunity to address this and yet you don't. The sad part is many of the voters that are being lied to will not know they are, simply because they trust these sponsors to tell the truth.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

double post


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Longshot said:


> gst said:
> 
> 
> > The study states CWD *can* demonstrate spontaneously, Dick states it can not. Someone is lying. Is is the scientific study or one of your fellow sposors of the HF measure?
> ...


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,



> Jim, if it were not for you sponsors initiating this measure the voters would not be addressing this issue so in fact your groups IS attempting to force your views onto others thru the use of this measure.


Are you telling me that people should not have a say in what they want? I don't think you will get too far with that line of reasoning.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Longshot, just as you want to claim this study has not proven it can demonstrate spontaneously, it has also not proven it can't. If you accept one, you have to accept the other. This study admits that and even suggests it is possible. So please find me where I have stated based off MY knowledge (not this studies) that these TSE's do demonstrate spontaneously. I have not. I have simply copied what is stated in a study a supporter of this measure provided as the best science on CWD. The study admits CWD possibly "may" demonstrate spontaneously, it has not been proven otherwise so possibly it "CAN", but yet Dick states unequivically CWD can NOT demonstrate spontaneously. Dick is stating to the public as fact something that contradicts the science behind the conclusions of this study and others. Some people might consider this lying to further an agenda. Apparently none of you supporting this measure want to address this and rather choose to talk all around it instead.

Jim, what I am telling you is, without your group of sponsors pushing this the public would not making this decision by themselves. Plain and simple. There are 2 things you need to understand, your group is responsible for bringing this measure forward and your group is responsible to make sure the people speaking on your behalf are not lying. Unless that is how you plan to convince the public to support your measure. Plain and simple. If you can't accept that responsibility, you should have never signed on as a sponsor. So do you believe Dick is telling the truth when he states unequivically that CWD can not demonstrate spontaneously, and accurately representing the science relating to the transmission of CWD??? Yes or No.

Bob, this was your study that you posted on FBO to inform people about CWD. Do you believe Dick's statement in his first post on this thread accurately represents what this study concludes as to how CWD originates? Yes or No. Do you believe the public should be "educated" with the truth or lies in regards to this measure?


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,



> Jim, what I am telling you is, without your group of sponsors pushing this the public would not making this decision by themselves. Plain and simple. There are 2 things you need to understand, your group is responsible for bringing this measure forward and your group is responsible to make sure the people speaking on your behalf are not lying. Unless that is how you plan to convince the public to support your measure. Plain and simple. If you can't accept that responsibility, you should have never signed on as a sponsor. So do you believe Dick is telling the truth when he states unequivically that CWD can not demonstrate spontaneously, and accurately representing the science relating to the transmission of CWD??? Yes or No.


Yes, I and the other co-sponsors of this initiaded measure are responsible for bringing this measure forward - duh! It still sounds to me that you don't want the public to make a decision on this issue. Why is that?

I speak in my own behalf and I am not lying. I also do not need, nor will I pay any further attention to, your opinion of what my responsibilities are as a sponsor.

As far as the CWD issue, I stated before I am not familiar with it and on that basis I will not comment on it. I will say; however, that I believe Dick is a very honest person.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jeeesh Jim it is in black and white on this thread and yet still no yes or no answer. You'd make a pretty good politician. You apparently don't want to accept your actions of bringing this measure forward are what will ultimately limit individuals to make the choice that was mentioned if this is successful.

I've made it clear I don't believe the initiated measure involving the nonhunting public is the way to handle issues regarding any form of "hunting". Because of the fact the parties involved can basically say whatever they want to sway the public. (HSUS type tactics) Apparently like what is happening here. Having said that if a group of misguided people want to bring it forth, it is clearly their right to do so. At that time it becomes someones responsibility to be sure the "facts" given to the public to educate them in deciding this issue are indeed true.

One would think the people directly involved in bringing forth the measure would take that upon themselves. Apparently you do not think that is your responsibility as a sponsor. If that is the case then it falls upon anyone else that believes that laws should be based off truth and facts rather than lies and insinuations to hold those involved accountable. It is too bad NDH for FC apparently needs someone from outside their own ranks to point out these lies and the insinuations based on them in regards to this measure and what is being told to the public and hold them accountable.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Why can't it be proven gst? Maybe because it can't be spread spontaneous. It has been proven to spread by contact so let's stick with what we know.........spread by contact proven, spontaneous..not proven. Until they can prove that spontaneous contraction has and can happen why would I believe that it can? We know how it does so why not take precautions in order to stop or slow down the spread of CWD by the means we know to be true (contact)? You would rather argue about spontaneous contraction when it hasn't been proven to exist.

Why should I believe something that hasn't nor by thier own word may not ever be able to be proven?


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

jhegg wrote,



> Yes I have. In fact, I spent this last weekend with him at the Grand Forks home show collecting petition signatures.


There should have been more than a few non-hunters there who would be happy to sign any initiative to ban some form of hunting. Opening the door.

Longshot,

You didn't answer my question. Who do you think should pay for the double fence? Should Theodore Roosevelt National Park be required to put up a double fence? No double standard


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

DG said:


> Longshot,
> 
> You didn't answer my question. Who do you think should pay for the double fence? Should Theodore Roosevelt National Park be required to put up a double fence? No double standard


No double standard here, but why are you looking for an excuse not to safeguard against transmitting CWD? I stated, "I think we need to do all we can to be safe". I don't see any double standard in that. Anywhere there have been CWD cases found should have a double fence. That would be a good start.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Longshot,



> Anywhere there have been CWD cases found should have a double fence.


If a private herd has CWD they are depopulated. As in, all made dead.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dwight,



> There should have been more than a few non-hunters there who would be happy to sign any initiative to ban some form of hunting. Opening the door.


I had one anti-hunter sign. There were probably about 35% or so that stated they were non-hunters, but most of them had relatives who hunted.

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim, one of my cousins is a nonhunting card carrying member of HSUS, she has a "relative" that hunts!!  I'm sure all the anti hunters identify themselves :wink: It would be interesting to have a list of HSUS members here in ND and see what percentage of them sign your list. I'd wager it would be above 35%.

longshot you do not seem to be understanding. The scientific community simply does not know if it can or can't ORIGINATE spontaneously. In the cases of animals in the wild, it is very hard to "prove" anything conclusively. The reasons should be apparent to most. (not a controlled enviroment for one) They have not ruled out the possibility that it can ORIGINATE sponateously, (like some other diseases such as cancer) there is a segment of the scientific community that believes it does in an atypical fashion spontanneously originate. Science believes it possibly explains instances where these TSE's have originated with no apparently outside introduction. This is not about how it is transferred in an area, but how it ORIGINATES. There is a difference.

The scientific community thru this study (sponsored by 3 orgs that are even supporting this measure) are responsibly saying it may happen spontaneously, Dick is saying conclusively it can't. I believe most relatively sane people will tend to believe the scientific community if the TRUE facts are made known. If you choose not to, that is entirely up to you. Perhaps that is why in regards to this disease issue Dick chooses to lie and insinuate "facts" to further his agenda. After going back and forth with you and Jim without an answer whether Dicks statement is true or not, and not hearing any input from Bob it appears that indeed sponsors and supporters of this measure are willing to let other sponsors misrepresent the best known science and lie to further this measure. Often times not answering a question is answer enough. Like I said earlier, that's something to be proud of.


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,



> Jim, one of my cousins is a nonhunting card carrying member of HSUS, she has a "relative" that hunts!! I'm sure all the anti hunters identify themselves


Tehn I'm sure you must think most of the signees' were non-hunting anti's. Boy, that's really grasping at straws. But, if that's all you have...

Jim


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim Actually I was merely suggesting a high percentage of HSUS members here in ND will be sure to sign this NDH for FC petition. I'd imagine they are getting emails on it as we speak! Perhaps even some from Mr. Kaseman! 

What I think is many of these folks signing this petition are average folks that would have never given this a second thought had you not introduced them to it. And I can see where some of these folks ,after being lied to regarding disease and listening to tall tales of abuse (shooting elk in the *** to not ruin the cape, ect.....) :eyeroll: that may or may not have happened in operations outside of ND would go ahead and sign your petition.

So when you make this list, how proud will your group NDH for FC be? http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/Initiativechart.pdf
Particularily when you look back and realize you allowed people to lie about the facts to achieve your agenda?

How soon after this measure is done does Kaseman plan on starting his baitng measure that he introduced to a few groups for support awhile back. I have a copy he gave out if you'd like one.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

DG said:


> Longshot,
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe you should look at the map in the beginning of this thread. I specifically shows captive herds with CWD (current) in red. Lets start there and then look at all the others. Go ahead and continue with the excuses, but it will do you no good in the view of the public.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Longshot said:


> DG said:
> 
> 
> > Longshot,
> ...


Longshot look on your map and tell us where there are instances of captive herds in ND with CWD to require your double fence measure. Remember this measure deals with ND not other states. Perhaps ND operations are working closely with the state board of animal health, the state vets office and USDA to take proper precautions. I wonder if the sponsors share this fact with the public when they are collecting signatures?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Ok gst, since CWD has now been found in ND are you saying we shouldn't take precautions. The bullheaded approach to not take precautions is part of the reason the public could care less if these private herds exist or not. You all would rather just wait until it's found in your private herd and then point fingers. By the way gst, what is done and is happening in other states affects public view and right now public view of these HF operations is not good.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

longshot, How's those English lessons coming to determine the difference in the definition of the words "may" and "can" and their context in a sentence??  PM joke.

I would guess now that CWD has been found in wild deer here in ND, these game farms are going to have to make some choices about how to protect their investments, which I'd imagine are substantial in most cases. Given I believe that here in ND if a captive herd is found to contain CWD they have to be depopulated it is a serious issue for these producers. It apparently is already in the wild, so how the G&F chooses to deal with it will remain to be seen. But NOWHERE have I suggested as you claim that adequate precautions shouldn't be taken, I merely suggested that perhaps these game farms are already working with the appropriate agencies to proactively do so. If any of these regulatory agencies believe a double fence is necessary, I'd guess they will take the appropriate steps to begin that process. I prefer to leave it in the hands of the appropriate agencies rather than relying on insinuated rhetoric and lies from the anti HF group to make knee jerk reactions. Now if you would please share how your suggested precautions of a double fence should be paid for, given the risk is of it possibly being a wild deer that infects these private herds(as was also mentioned as a possibility in the afore mentioned study) and any other precautions you would suggest implementing at whose cost.

And I'm guessing how the public veiws these game farms is directly related to the tales these anti HF groups are telling at the home and garden shows! :wink:


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Gabe,



> Jeeesh Jim it is in black and white on this thread and yet still no yes or no answer. You'd make a pretty good politician. You apparently don't want to accept your actions of bringing this measure forward are what will ultimately limit individuals to make the choice that was mentioned if this is successful.


Gabe, you still don't get it. What will ultimately "limit" anything will be the *actions of ND voters*, not my actions.



> I've made it clear I don't believe the initiated measure involving the nonhunting public is the way to handle issues regarding any form of "hunting"


That won't work. HF operations are not hunting.



> Because of the fact the parties involved can basically say whatever they want to sway the public. (HSUS type tactics) Apparently like what is happening here. Having said that if a group of misguided people want to bring it forth, it is clearly their right to do so. At that time it becomes someones responsibility to be sure the "facts" given to the public to educate them in deciding this issue are indeed true.


I do say what I believe. Does that mean I am using "HSUS type tactics"? What are "HSUS type tactics" anyway? My beliefs are that these high fence activities are not hunting, do not involve fair chase and are not ethical. We can talk about those points all day long.



> Jim Actually I was merely suggesting a high percentage of HSUS members here in ND will be sure to sign this NDH for FC petition. I'd imagine they are getting emails on it as we speak! Perhaps even some from Mr. Kaseman!


I don't ask people who they are affiliated with, I just ask them to sign my petition if they want to put this initiated measure on the ballot this fall. Apparently you think some people should be automatically disqualified from signing the petition because of the affiliation with some group.



> What I think is many of these folks signing this petition are average folks that would have never given this a second thought had you not introduced them to it.


I agree - most say "they do that here?"



> tall tales of abuse (shooting elk in the a$$ to not ruin the cape, ect.....)


I don't have any idea where that one came from. Give me some particulars on that incident. i.e. where & when that happened.



> So when you make this list, how proud will your group NDH for FC be? http://files.hsus.org/web-files/PDF/Initiativechart.pdf
> Particularily when you look back and realize you allowed people to lie about the facts to achieve your agenda?


So now I'm "allowing" people to lie? Sorry Gabe, regardless of what you think - I am not a God. I do not have the power to "allow" people to say or do anything.



> How soon after this measure is done does Kaseman plan on starting his baitng measure that he introduced to a few groups for support awhile back. I have a copy he gave out if you'd like one.


That has nothing to do with this initiated measure. You will have to deal with Roger on that one.

Do you have any more inane "shots in the dark" that you want to bring up?

Jim


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst said:


> longshot, How's those English lessons coming to determine the difference in the definition of the words "may" and "can" and their context in a sentence??  PM joke.


You mean as in the difference between may not and cannot that you were attacking Dick on earlier in this thread? So you are fine with this statement also; "CWD cannot be spread by spontaneous contraction"? Or would may not be more appropriate? You can twist words as well as any politician. Then again you probably still don't see it. :lol:



> I would guess now that CWD has been found in wild deer here in ND, these game farms are going to have to make some choices about how to protect their investments, which I'd imagine are substantial in most cases. Given I believe that here in ND if a captive herd is found to contain CWD they have to be depopulated it is a serious issue for these producers. It apparently is already in the wild, so how the G&F chooses to deal with it will remain to be seen. But NOWHERE have I suggested as you claim that adequate precautions shouldn't be taken, I merely suggested that perhaps these game farms are already working with the appropriate agencies to proactively do so. If any of these regulatory agencies believe a double fence is necessary, I'd guess they will take the appropriate steps to begin that process. I prefer to leave it in the hands of the appropriate agencies rather than relying on insinuated rhetoric and lies from the anti HF group to make knee jerk reactions. Now if you would please share how your suggested precautions of a double fence should be paid for, given the risk is of it possibly being a wild deer that infects these private herds(as was also mentioned as a possibility in the afore mentioned study) and any other precautions you would suggest implementing at whose cost.


So then I am to feel sorry for you if your herd contracts CWD when you didn't even attempt to take any measure to safeguard against the possibility? I don't think so. Everyone is looking for a handout for the price of doing business. If the taxpayer pays for the double fence, does the public get a share in your profits also?



> And I'm guessing how the public veiws these game farms is directly related to the tales these anti HF groups are telling at the home and garden shows! :wink:


I don't think any stories are needed for most. It's not hunting and most everyone knows it and believes that it isn't. That's why you are so afraid it will be brought up to a vote to the people, because the majority of people in this state don't consider it hunting.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

Jim,

"Gabe, you still don't get it. What will ultimately "limit" anything will be the *actions of ND voters*, not my actions."

Jim, with out the sponsors bringing this measure forward, would the public you want to lay this off be moving to ban this? Keep in mind your statement below that most ask "are they even doing this here?"

"That won't work. HF operations are not hunting."

Jim, In your opinion. Your actions on this measure are an attempt to take the ability to make that distinction away from others.

"I do say what I believe. Does that mean I am using "HSUS type tactics"? What are "HSUS type tactics" anyway? My beliefs are that these high fence activities are not hunting, do not involve fair chase and are not ethical. We can talk about those points all day long."

Jim, As long as what you say is the truth, fine. But allowing your fellow sponsors to insinuate mistruthes and state outright lies are what many that are familiar with HSUS would call "HSUS type tactics"

"I don't ask people who they are affiliated with, I just ask them to sign my petition if they want to put this initiated measure on the ballot this fall. Apparently you think some people should be automatically disqualified from signing the petition because of the affiliation with some group."

Jim, I'm suggesting that a percentage of your petition signers will be HSUS members and that you knew that before you started this measure. So it is clear you have no problem accepting help in the form of signatures from HSUS to further your agenda.

"I agree - most say "they do that here?""

Jim, This statement goes to show this wouldn't even be an issue without your groups involvement, And how little these petition signers know about this and so are reliant on what is told to them to make up their minds. One would think that should be the truth.

"I don't have any idea where that one came from. Give me some particulars on that incident. i.e. where & when that happened."

Jim, It is one of the many "facts" laid out there for this public by your friend Rodger Kaseman.

"So now I'm "allowing" people to lie? Sorry Gabe, regardless of what you think - I am not a God. I do not have the power to "allow" people to say or do anything.

Jim, All you have to do to address this is answer wether you believe Dicks statement in this thread regarding how CWD originates is the truth, and if it is not, simply state you don't feel your fellow sponsors should lie to further this agenda.

As to the measure to ban baiting, it was mentioned only to show the willingness of the people you cosigned this measure with to use these measures to accomplish their agendas.

As to having any other points, I'll wait until you directly address the one repeatedly asked, Do you believe Dicks statement on how CWD can originate is the truth and accurately respresents what science is stateing?


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

gst, did you completely miss this, or do you only ask questions?


> So then I am to feel sorry for you if your herd contracts CWD when you didn't even attempt to take any measure to safeguard against the possibility? I don't think so. Everyone is looking for a handout for the price of doing business. If the taxpayer pays for the double fence, does the public get a share in your profits also?


I don't care if its public or to your face, you made a statement that was not true. You stated the report says that it can spread by spontaneous contraction when it doesn't. They same thing you are calling Dick out on (with opposite belief), yet you can't even see your own hypocrisy. I figured instead of continuing on the thread I would take it to a PM since after multiple posts here you still don't get it. That is what PM's are for gst. Now I understand why some have you on the ignore list, too dense to read what is written.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Actually after reading the posts between DG and gst I think I will sign. Reading the post of those supporting the HF operations and seeing nothing but excuses to the protection of the public's wild herd or their own has made up my mind.


----------



## gst (Jan 24, 2009)

OK longshot, The study claims CWD MAY originate spontaneously, I stated the study says it CAN originate spontaneously. I should have used the word MAY instead. I DID NOT say the study states it DOES originate spontaneously. There in lies the difference, can or may are not definative. If you want to argue the difference between the use of CAN and MAY in this context, you'll have to do so by yourself. I am comfortable believing most understood the intent of both the comment I made and the comment Dick made, and the difference between the two.


----------



## DG (Jan 7, 2008)

Longshot wrote,



> Maybe you should look at the map in the beginning of this thread. I specifically shows captive herds with CWD (current) in red. Lets start there and then look at all the others. Go ahead and continue with the excuses, but it will do you no good in the view of the public.


No, it specifically shows captive facilities in red. These are government experimental and research facilities. They have been around for a long time. It is hard to find much out about these facilities.

One of the oddest aspects of all the scientific papers on CWD is the tremendous reluctance to give the names, dates, locations, and operators of affected state fish and game and university facilities. This makes it very difficult to map where and when the disease has been seen to occur and whether there are independent foci of infection beyond Ft. Colliins/Wheatland. It is hard to believe that expert facilities do not maintain a permanent tracking record for the health and disposition of each and every individual animal. Given the failure of the two eradication schemes, this secrecy makes tracking and confinement of the disease all that much harder, which is in no one's best interest.

White blood cells, marrow, and peripheral neurons are known to be infectious (but low titre compared to CNS) in scrapie, BSE, TME, and CJD; no data is available on CWD titre by tissue type. Low titre means the disease would start amplifying but spongiform changes might be slow relative to normal life span, ie it dies of something else before becoming clinical. Animals can be highly infectious a year or more before displaying symptoms.

The following statement, while on the cautious side, is certainly consistent with current medical understanding of spongiform encephalopathies and the precautionary principle:

Val Geist, former head of the University of Calgary's environmental science department, said even the antlers are capable of carrying the disease because they contain neurological tissue including blood vessels and nerve endings. "If it (TSE) is somewhere in the tissue, I certainly wouldn't ingest any of the tissue."

There are now at least 5 known captive research facilities and at least 3 zoos and 5 game farms involved in CWD, all traceable if you want to shipments of animals out of Ft. Collins. These are:

1. Sybille Wildlife Research and Education Center, Visitor Center and Wildlife Viewing Sites - on Hwy. 34, about 28 miles SW from I25 exit south of Wheatland State of Wyoming - Game and Fish Department - Sybille Visitor Center 2362 Highway 34 Wheatland State WY 82201 Phone 307-322-2784 from 4

2. Kremmling. Colorado State University - Cooperative Extension - Grand County PO. Box 475 Kremmling State CO 80459 Phone 303-724-3436 from 1

3. Meeker. Colorado State University - Cooperative Extension - Rio Blanco County 779 Sulphur Creek Road, Box 270 City Meeker CO 81641 Phone 303-878-4093 from 1

4. Main Ft. Collins facility. State of Colorado - Division of Wildlife - Wildlife Research Center State of Colorado - Division of Wildlife - Wildlife Research Center 317 West Prospect City Fort Collins CO 80526 Phone 970-484-2836

5. Wild Animal Disease Center, CSU, Ft. Collins exchanging cervids with 4

6. Denver zoo receiving mule deer from 4

7. Toronto zoo receiving mule deer from 4

8. Wyoming zoo receiving mule deer from 1

9. South Dakota game farm receiving calf elk from 1 or 4 [?]

10. Regina, Saskatchewan game farm receiving South Dakota elk, 27 April, 1996 confirmation. from 9

11. 12 cases of CWD reported now from S. Dakota, at least 2 different herds, seemingly 3-4 game farms, from 1 and 4.

Longshot, The elk ranchers and the NDBOH saw this coming and got pro-active in 1998.

Elk Growers ask for surveillance in N. Dakota
ND Department of Agriculture Press Release January 23, 1998 
BISMARCK - The North Dakota Elk Growers Association has asked the state veterinarian's office to implement a mandatory surveillance program for detecting chronic wasting disease (CWD) in their herds.The elk growers met Thursday in Mandan.

State Veterinarian Dr. Larry Schuler said the surveillance program will apply to all domestic elk and deer owners, and will go into effect in February.

"We want to assure both the public and livestock producers that there is no known danger to other species," said Lyle McLain, Mohall, president of the elk growers. "We will do everything we can do in working with the state veterinarian to be sure the disease does not come to North Dakota."

The group's request follows the report of two confirmed cases of CWD in South Dakota elk in 1997. Chronic wasting disease is known to affect only elk and deer. It is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) related to, but different from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), the cause of the so-called "mad cow" disease in cattle, and from Creuzfeldt-Jakob Disease in humans. CWD was first detected in wild mule deer in Colorado in 1967. It has since been found in wild deer and elk in Colorado and southern Wyoming. It has never been detected in either wild or domestic animals in North Dakota.

Aside from the two cases in South Dakota and a single case in elk in Saskatchewan in 1996, all reported cases have involved wild animals. Schuler said the surveillance program will require that any death among domestic elk or deer must be reported immediately to the owner's veterinarian. The veterinarian will arrange for removal of the animal's brain which will be sent first to North Dakota State University and then to an approved lab for diagnostic analysis.

If the laboratory confirms a positive diagnosis for CWD, further action, including possible quarantines, will be determined by the North Dakota Board of Animal Health.

At the elk growers meeting, Dr. Michael Miller a wildlife veterinarian with the Colorado Division of Wildlife and a leading authority on CWD, spoke on the latest research on the disease. Dr. Earl Stoltenow, extension veterinarian with NDSU, Fargo, spoke on the symptoms and diagnosis of CWD, and Dr. Susan Keller, the deputy state veterinarian, spoke on other TSEs.

McLain said with the information the elk growers received at the meeting, "most of us won't wait until an animal dies before calling a veterinarian. If we think an animal has symptoms, we'll call the vet right away."MEDIA: For more information, please call Dr. Larry Schuler or Dr. Susan Keller at (701) 328-2654

Longshot, No more excuses. Here is the best piece I have found on this subject. It is long and we all hate cut and pastes, however no more excuses.

WHAT IS CWD? Chronic Wasting Disease is a neurological disease specific to cervid species such as deer and elk. It is in the same family of disease as CJD in humans, scrapie in sheep and Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) or "mad cow" disease. All are Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE disease) meaning they can be passed to other animals and eventually results in sponge-like brain damage. The deer version is called CWD because it causes progressive eating dysfunctions resulting in gradual loss of weight and eventual death, usually by pneumonia.

HOW ARE THE SPONGY BRAINS FORMED? Since brain cells cannot regenerate efficiently, Spongiform texture is the result of individual brain cells being killed off, leaving open voids where the brain cells formerly resided. The individual cells are probably killed by the toxic presence of abnormal brain proteins known as "Prions" which are a diagnostic symptom of the TSE diseases. All tissue have prion protein, but only TSE victims develop excessive abnormal prion protein in their brains.

WHY IS THE PRION PROTEIN ABNORMAL? Virtually all, normal living protein material can be digested in proteinase enzymes. This is how the body cleanses itself of processed proteins for recycling or excretion. Abnormal prions apparently have a high manganese content, which seems to render proteinase digestion ineffective; hence abnormal prions cannot be dissolved via normal bodily functions resulting in toxic accumulations.

WHAT FORMS THE ABNORMAL "PRIONS"? Much controversy surrounds the cause of abnormal prion creation. While many suggest that the prions themselves are "self-replicating", this premise is in contravention with traditional biological principals whereby living cells needing RNA or DNA to identically replicate. Prions have no RNA or DNA. Alternate theories of toxic chemicals, heavy metals, nutritional deficiencies, bacteria, virus', viroids and virinos have been proposed, but NO theory has yet been proven as to the specific cause of abnormal prions.

HOW FAST DOES CWD KILL ITS VICTIMS? CWD is not very contagious unless animals are intensively exposed to the unknown pathogen. While evidence is not widely available, government research and publications indicate that the maximum natural incubation from exposure to death is 33 months +/- 2 months, or less than 3 years. Shorter durations have been documented and the earliest detectable disease has been in 4-month old artificially exposed fawn. Farmed cervid regulations require a 60-month safety factor, a margin not substantiated by collected data.

HOW IS CWD DETECTED? Clinical signs of CWD (a sickly, emaciated deer) are NOT diagnostic. Currently, TSE diseases are detected by observation of the brain vacuoles (void spaces) and by immunochemistry or ELISA tests upon brain or lymph nodes, whereby a chemical stain attaches to the abnormal prions allowing them to be detected by visual or optical methods. All tests are currently post-mortem, although several pre-mortem tests are being perfected. Only a few government-sponsored labs are allowed to do the testing.

ARE THE TESTS INFALLIBLE? NO! All test methods are somewhat subjective and are constantly subject to misinterpretation and interference. Bacteria have been known to confuse test results. False negatives are common during the early stage of disease and false positives are possible. Post-mortem sampling procedures and sample treatment after collection will potentially affect results. Human errors are always possible.

IS THERE A CWD CURE OR VACCINE? No! Since the actual cause of CWD is undetermined, there is as yet no cure or vaccine. While early stage infection might yet prove reversible, once clinical signs appear, the disease is terminal. Numerous private companies and government research efforts are being devoted to solving the CWD dilemma.

CAN CWD PERSIST IN THE ENVIRONMENT? Yes! Abundant evidence suggests that residual environmental contamination, probably via feces, urine, saliva or carcass debris, may play a more important role in disease transmission than direct animal-to-animal contact. Insects may be a factor as well.

IS THERE A RISK TO HUMANS? To date, NO EVIDENCE has been found of a human disease derived from eating or handling a CWD positive animal. However, some evidence does exist for BSE beef cows infecting an extremely minute fraction of human consumers with "new variant" CJD. All domestic cervids slaughtered for meat under government inspection must be tested negative for CWD. However, wild harvested animals are NOT required to be tested. As with any disease, precautions are advisable.

HOW DID TSE DISEASES ORIGINALLY START? Two TSE's, spontaneous human Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and sheep scrapie have been documented for many, many decades. But, most of the other TSE diseases found in mink, monkeys, cats, zoo animals, etc. have been created or manipulated by man's influence over animals.

SO WHERE DID CWD COME FROM? Observational evidence and most theories suggest that CWD, like BSE, originated from the sheep TSE disease, scrapie, which has been documented for over 400 years in Europe and about 60 years in North America. In the 1950's and 1960's, northeastern Colorado, specifically Larimer County, Colorado had a high infection rate for sheep scrapie. Close proximity of wild deer to sheep may have randomly passed the disease, or more logically the human-induced close confinement of deer and sheep undergoing artificial stress events, may have mutated and passed the disease to deer.

WHEN DID CWD FIRST APPEAR? The first cases of classic "chronic wasting" appeared in the late 1960's in captive wild deer held in interchangeable deer research facilities operated by Colorado State University (CSU) and the Colorado Division of Wildlife (CDOW) at Ft Collins, Larimer County, Colorado. Wild deer cases were not observed until the late 1970's and then only with in a 50-kilometers (usually within a 5-km radius) of the research facilities even though sampling occurred outside that radius.

WHAT KIND OF EXPERIMENTS WERE DONE ON DEER IN THE 1960's? Many unusual and controversial studies were performed. Fully documented research studies placed starved deer and sheep into common pens to determine stress-induced activity, time to death, or preferred food under stressed conditions. Nuclear radiation studies had deer and sheep injected with, fed or exposed to contaminated radioactive materials to determine death dosages and behavioral aberrations. Eventually cross-species (non TSE) disease transmission studies were also attempted. The US Fish and Wildlife Service conducted lethal dosage pesticide studies at it's tiny confined Denver Federal Center deer pens located in nearby Lakewood, Colorado.

CHRONOLOGICALLY, WHERE in the world HAS CWD BEEN FOUND?
1960's CSU and CDOW Research facilities at Ft Collins were contaminated, and possibility the USFW facilities at Lakewood CO.

1970's: The Wyoming Sybille Wildlife Research facility, a private zoo and the Toronto, Canada Zoo all of which had received animals from the Colorado research facilities. Exposed animals were sent to at least four other Colorado deer research pens at Meeker, Kremmling, USFS Fraser and the USFW Federal Center pens. Additionally, animals were shipped to facilities and zoos around the continent. Numerous positive wild animals were found in and around the Ft Collins area.

1980's to mid 1990's: CWD was found in Rocky Mountain National Park, and in wild animals of SE Wyoming. The "endemic area" was spreading predominately north and east. Until 1991, deliberate and knowingly, the CDOW moved exposed research animals to numerous locales around Colorado including fawning pens at Pawnee Grasslands and to nutrition research pens in far NW Colorado near the Utah border. CWD research tissue samples sent all over the country, including the University of Wisconsin at Madison. SEE inset MAP below.

1996-98: CWD was found on a Saskatchewan, Canada game farm, which had in turn, infected several dozen other SK farms over several years. The SK source farm was found to have had elk from a South Dakota farm, which had received deer from the Denver Zoo, which in turn, had gotten deer from the CDOW. Domestic cases were found on a farm in Montana and one in Oklahoma, which traced a history of animals from the South Dakota source farm.

1999-2000: Domestic cases were found in NE Colorado, in the wild and in domestic elk of Nebraska and in South Dakota. The endemic area was expanding. A few wild CWD cases in SK, Canada. A single case was found in South Korea from animals imported from SK, Canada.

2001: A large outbreak emanating from a NE Colorado elk farm but was caught by a state-mandated domestic cervid CWD surveillance program with several Colorado farm animals and one Kansas animal positive. The NE Colorado source herd was in the endemic area near the CDOW's Pawnee Grassland fawning pens and had animals from two elk farms near Ft. Collins.

2002: Implementation of the USDA CWD program. Rapid depopulation completed upon the exposed domestic cervid herds. Much increased wild surveillance. Numerous positive Wisconsin wild animals found west of Madison WI. and south into Northern Illinois. CWD found widely dispersed in Western Colorado wild animals, but clustered near the above-mentioned CDOW research facilities. Alberta had one CWD elk on a farm, which had years ago received animals from the South Dakota source farm. Positive animals found in Utah near the border with Colorado. Several CWD animals found in Southern New Mexico. Two infected deer farms in Southern Wisconsin, but were not the source of wild CWD.

2003: More wild positives in WI, UT, NM, SD WY and CO. More domestic positives found in WI and MN. Greatly increased lab testing abilities and surveillance programs were instigated all around the continent. Two more CWD cases in Alberta domestic whitetail deer and then UNRELATED BSE in a beef cow closed the Canada ruminant trade.

WHAT IS THE STATUS OF THE COLORADO FARM CWD CASES? In 1997 Colorado elk farmers voluntarily began disease testing for CWD. A mandatory program was installed and discovered the first domestic CWD case in 1999, with many more in late 2001. By early 2002, ALL Colorado domestic cases and their herd mates, as well as most farms in the endemic wild CWD area, (total ~4,500 head) were depopulated with 56 positive cases, 48 from the NE Colorado original source ranch and six separate cases within the NE Colorado endemic area presumed to have been transmitted from the wild. NO additional cases since early 2002.

WHAT CONTROLS HAVE BEEN PLACED ON COLORADO ELK FARMS? Despite a mandatory and SUCESSFULL CWD surveillance program on all farm cervid deaths, in 2002 the Colorado Dept of Agriculture (CDOA) and the CDOW, subjected to undue pressure from Governor Owens and the press, executed a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The MOA unilaterally gave away the exclusive and proper legislative authority of the CDOA to regulate farmed cervids as Alternative Livestock. Onerous new rules dictated by the CDOW restricted farm cervid import, export, fencing, testing, wild animal contact, intra-state movement, etc. with review and veto authority from the CDOW. These rules were imposed upon elk farms, which were in the midst of already successfully eradicating CWD from their herds with the help of the CDOA by mid-2002. NO controls were demanded or imposed upon wild animal movements, disease sources, or government sponsored and/or operated research activities.

HOW DID CWD SPREAD AROUND COLORADO? While many insinuate that game farms have spread CWD, NO case of wild CWD has been tracked back to a domestic elk farm and ALL exposed farms have been depopulated. To the contrary, at least six domestic cases, as well as, the initial NE Colorado source farm must have obtained the disease from the wild. Wild animal migrations have moved the disease in all directions from Larimer County and government research animal movements have jumped CWD all across Western Colorado.

SO WHO IS REALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR CWD? While the evidence of the origin of CWD back in the 1960's is somewhat cloudy, the movement of the disease since then is not at all ambiguous. While CSU has not made any specific animal information available, Colorado Open Records requests and the CDOW have published a portion of their research activities, which acknowledged exposed research animals co-mingled with wild study subjects. Captive wild deer held in contaminated pens escaped, were returned to the wild, or when dead, were disposed of in an unknown fashion. Further, exposed animals were given or sold to zoos, universities and private individuals. Diseased tissue samples were sent around the continent. In 1996, CDOW internal documents (See inset memo above) admitted the potential liability of the CDOW for the eventual and possible introduction of CWD into domestic elk herds. While some mitigation steps were then taken in 1997, such as providing double fence materials, by 1999 the disease had entered the Colorado domestic farms, but was fortunately caught by mandatory industry surveillance and was eliminated by 2002.

CAN CWD BE CONTROLLED? Predominately, CWD HAS BEEN controlled in domestic cervids that are not exposed to infected wild animals. Recent discussions at the United States Animal Health Association Annual Meetings in October included the following key points:

Route of transmission is horizontal and other, and is contagious; 
Infectivity is high in mule deer and lower in elk; 
Incidence higher in males and lower in females, 
Primarily a risk to wildlife populations, rather than livestock or human populations; 
Factors that contribute include: scrapie in sheep and wildlife movements;

Comments attributed to Dr. Mike Miller of the CDOW suggested that 'There is no apparent and practical means of eliminating the disease from the wildlife in Colorado.' Here in Colorado wild CWD movement remains unabated to date.

SO IF CWD IS PREDOMINATELY AN UNCONTROLLED WILD CERVID DISEASE, WHY ARE CERVIDS FARMERS SUBJECTED TO CONTINUING ONEROUS REGULATIONS? Quite simply, an agenda to defer attention and responsibility away from the ongoing wild problem. The Zero CWD risk currently demanded of farmers via excessive regulations, regulations not based upon scientific fact, will NOT have a significant impact upon the steady progress of the wild disease. Onerous rules serve only to eliminate farmers from a private business that "competes" with government agencies; agencies which desire to control cervid species, exclusively. To date, scores of farmers have been put out of business with virtually NO impact on the rampant progression of wild disease. "FACTS from the Farm" suggests that corrective, scientifically justified regulations and procedures are now necessary.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Author: Mr. Forrest, a graduate of the Montana School of Mines, has over 30 years of investigative earth science background, directs and compiles CWD research for the Foundation and was formerly a full time elk farmer depopulated by CWD concerns. His detailed, factual research and writings on CWD may be viewed at www.stopcwd.org. The information presented above is excerpted from extensive published and unpublished literature, all of which are available for review. Inquires welcome (719-657-0942), [email protected].


----------



## jhegg (May 29, 2004)

Dwight,
Thanks for the info!
Jim


----------

