MN Bonus Deer

Thoughts on the new season for Southern MN?

http://news.dnr.state.mn.us/2017/12/11/boundaries-and-rules-for-late-season-deer-hunt-in-cwd-zone-announced/

Yes. Keep doing it. I’m 100% behind this testing program. Anyone who really cares about deer and deer hunting in MN should be concerned about CWD. It is absolutely critical that the DNR and the public know if this disease is expanding or (hopefully) contracting.

CWD is not a joke. If this disease were to reach an epidemic stage as other diseases in other states have, the impact on our hunting way of life in this state could be changed for decades.

Many of you are too young to remember anything but the best of times as far as deer hunting opportunities in this state. Talk to your fathers and grandfathers about what it felt like to sit on the bench in the early 1970s when the population crashed and there was NO hunting in all of Minnesota. Season closed, game over. Back then it was predators and harsh winters, but don’t think that disease couldn’t cause this kind of a total hunting shutdown.

The number of deer taken within this program represent an insignificant number in terms of having an impact on the overall herd size in this area. This is NOT a cull or as some have tried to label it, an attempt to exterminate deer.

Grouse

I agree they really need to determine the entire scope of this issue.
On another note, I heard this morning that elsewhere in the state where CWD testing was mandatory for opening weekend that 11,000 deer were tested and NONE were positive. That is a good sign.

Agree with Grouse.

Well stated Grouse ! This is not for fun. This is
a serious situation.

tweed

I think we can bring the infection rate down to 0 by banning deer farms.

minrod wrote:

I think we can bring the infection rate down to 0 by banning deer farms.

X2 !!!!
I don’t understand why the DNR doesn’t acknowledge the deer farms are at the very least, part of the problem.

haleysgold wrote:

<div class=”d4p-bbt-quote-title”>minrod wrote:</div>
I think we can bring the infection rate down to 0 by banning deer farms.

X2 !!!!
I don’t understand why the DNR doesn’t acknowledge the deer farms are at the very least, part of the problem.

Agreed! The CWD case that led to the testing elsewhere in the state was due to an infected deer being sold from one farm to another.
This was in Central MN. I don’t have knowledge of the SE issue to know what the cause was there, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit.

From what is know about the disease, once it gets in the ground its nearly impossible to get rid of it. So, deer in a captive area are going to get exposed to it at some time. Hence in a pen, much more risk of exposure.

haleysgold wrote:

I don’t understand why the DNR doesn’t acknowledge the deer farms are at the very least, part of the problem.

They do acknowledge it. We have to keep in mind, the DNR is not a legislative body. They can’t make laws they can only enforce what’s on the books. Banning deer farms would require an act of the legislature.

Also, as we saw, there is also a considerable lack of clarity over who enforces regulations for deer farms. The Board of Animal Health or the DNR. And the BAH does not seem to work and play well with other agencies.

Grouse

If I am not mistaken, 2 deer were tested as positive in Winona County this fall/early winter, both from deer farms. Winona County has been added to the parameters of the 603 zone’s requirements.

That mess between the Board of Animal Health and the DNR is something else. Eliminating the captive farms seems like the right thing to do, however I’m guessing that until there is conclusive proof that captive deer and wild stock are swapping spit it won’t happen.

Personally I wonder if there is any chance of this disease being spread in an airborne way as well as contact and ground exposure. And again personally, I think this disease is in every state where deer, elk, moose live, it just hasn’t been addressed in many yet. It doesn’t just “happen” one day and a deer is seen acting wacky. It has to have a beginning and when you’re dealing with a free-range animal it is going to be darned tough to put a finger on the point of contact. I’m not completely sold on this infection from exposed ground stuff outside of a confined area where concentrations are certainly going to be higher than in a wild environment.

This statement though….”The number of deer taken within this program represent an insignificant number in terms of having an impact on the overall herd size in this area. This is NOT a cull or as some have tried to label it, an attempt to exterminate deer….has some serious mis-information in it. It is indeed a cull. It has indeed caused a significant impact on the quality of the deer herd within this area and has impacted the herd size in a huge way. Talk to those who hunted in the area involved and ask how many deer they saw during the season. I know of several persons who saw 0 deer in 9 days of hunting locations that always had numbers of deer. There are other ways to reduce a deer herd while also eliminating extermination. All of these elimination hunts are the dnr’s knee-jerk to something they should be studying for other methods of control all because the dnr employs a few people of power who wear blinders.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

It is indeed a cull. It has indeed caused a significant impact on the quality of the deer herd within this area and has impacted the herd size in a huge way.

Alright, I didn’t phrase that well. By “not a cull” I meant this is not an attempt to cull dieseased animals.

The only thing that taking these extra deer will do is slow the growth of the population in this area or at most reduce the deer numbers by single digit percentages. Keeping in mind there is not a fence around this whole area keeping deer from other areas out, the deer taken during this hunt will largely be replaced by the spring fawn drop and other deer entering from outside areas where the populations are stable or expanding.

Individual hunter reports of deer seen do NOT represent an accurate view of anything. My farm in an an area that has a population estimate of a 21% increase in deer population over 3 years ago and I’ve still got neighbors b!tching that the wolves ate all the deer because they sit in their stands and chain smoke and don’t see any deer.

Yeah, I get that every hunter is disappointed when there’s anything happening that could mean fewer deer to shoot. My point is there’s the potential for a much, much larger problem here and unless it’s watched carefully, then we could have regional or even a statewide epidemic on our hands.

Also, keeping in mind that nobody is forcing private landowners to shoot any deer at all during this season. Yes, the populations could go down near heavily hunted public areas, but over 95% of the land in the special hunt area is private. If anyone is “killing all the deer”, well, it isn’t DNR employees out there on private land shooting deer.

Sorry, I don’t agree it’s the DNR wearing blinders. The blinders I see are firmly over the eyes of people who want to do nothing unless/until the fields are full of dead deer. Of course, then then they’d be saying it was “DNR mismanagment” that caused it to happen…

Grouse

I didn’t say they should do nothing….

“All of these elimination hunts are the dnr’s knee-jerk to something they should be studying for other methods of control all because the dnr employs a few people of power who wear blinders.”

….my suggestion is to research other avenues that don’t include in this fashion. And it appears that the dnr is not pursuing other avenues as this killing option is the only thing they can come up with, hence the blinders. Wisconsin tried this elimination thing and failed miserably. Iowa and Wisconsin both have CDW and as close as this area is in proximity to those two states, and dealing with a free-range animal, this shooting gallery crap is like a Band-Aid on a cardiac surgery incision.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

I didn’t say they should do nothing….

“All of these elimination hunts are the dnr’s knee-jerk to something they should be studying for other methods of control all because the dnr employs a few people of power who wear blinders.”

….my suggestion is to research other avenuels that don’t include in this fashion. And it appears that the dnr is not pursuing…

Such as??? You keep alluding to them. So what are they?

The answer to slowimg infectious disease spread in a population is known. You just dont like the answer.

Grouse

I’ll bet there are a lot of aids patients who are thankful that the dnr isn’t in charge of disease control. I don’t like the idea that we employ people who are supposed to be relatively intelligent and that can find answers to a problem without first jumping on the sky is falling bandwagon and order a fun shoot to eradicate deer from one whole area. I am not alone in this thought.

Tom Sawvell wrote:

I’ll bet there are a lot of aids patients who are thankful that the dnr isn’t in charge of disease control. I don’t like the idea that we employ people who are supposed to be relatively intelligent and that can find answers to a problem without first jumping on the sky is falling bandwagon and order a fun shoot to eradicate deer from one whole area. I am not alone in this thought.

Couldn’t have said it better Tom !!