Hmmm.

Another reason to come to a Hunters Night Out. You can get info straight from the horses mouth and make your own decisions.

Our read the information that is referenced the video and make your own decision. I have read the CWD response plan several times as well as quite a large volume of peer reviewed papers, as well as attended a hunters night. Exactly what did the video above mis-state?

I like Trey and think he can hold his own without my support. That said, there was a lot of their opinion on the video. Whenever you state an opinion you cannot argue misstate.

Doesn’t mean I agree with every line item of the plan. I also don’t care for Sykes temperament. But they are definitely in a difficult position. Jeremy does a good job of explaining the plan whether you like it or not. He also solicits feedback of plan from the stakeholders. I would encourage everyone to read it in detail and email him any suggestions.

1. We aren’t against high fences or breeders despite what most think
2. If you will remember only 60 deer will be taken in a 60 day or less timeframe to determine the core zone. (Where we differ from other states, and we believe our plan is superior and practical since we learned from them)
3. Then we determine local densities in an effort to determine sampling needs to reach 95% confidence that we can identify CWD if prevalence is 1%. Once we figure that out we will monitor for sick deer, roadkills and yes deer we sample.

There are other points I could make about things said in the video but they aren’t CWD or science related so I’ll leave it at that.

Heck, at least folks have this and can comment. Think about those states where it just popped up (although it isn’t relevant to the discussion).

Furthermore, several states that killed tons of deer and didn’t let the deer go to a processor didn’t have much of a choice. They had to pull samples, mail them off and wait for results, up to weeks. These samples were tested using the ELYSA test which will show positives, however to back up those tests samples must be sent to NVSL and tested using the IHC tests. All this takes time, time processors aren’t going to hold deer, much less risk getting a positive in their facility. They were simply playing on emotion with those comments.

And could you imagine the outcry if a hunter was given a positive deer to eat by mistake?

None of us are ever going to say all of this isn’t going to change as we move forward. CWD is a very dynamic topic and will continue to be for years.

I still have a hard time trying to wrap my head around the fact that you can't kill it. That is what scares the hell out of people.

You can't back this video up and be in opposition to DR. Ford, cause they both pushing a line of BS.

1. Is an opinion, from both your side and theirs. Yes it is legal in the state as to how well accepted and indorsed by DCNR is debatable. I know Chuck himself has personally told Deer farmers that he doesn’t care if every deer on their place dies as they aren’t his concern. I was standing beside the deer farmver at the BJCC when he made the statement.

2. No comment

3. Is like the other post from Honolulu and Matt Brock a nice caveat regarding wild free ranging deer. If you read the response plan as it pertains to Trey it calls for depopulation of captive deer within the 25 mile radius and testing to establish a 95% confidence of catching 1% prevalence. What that means is that if a deer farmer is within the 25 mile radius and has 100 deer 95 will be shot and tested regardless of any of the deer showing signs etc simply because they are captive and within the containment zone. Understand Trey or any other farmers outrage when a state agency without proof is going to come on your farm that you worked to build and slaughter your investment for the “greater good”. Regardless of what the public perception is of deer farmers someone has put in some hard work and sacrafice to build that farm. Draw a parallel how would the cattle farmers respond if the state came in and slaughtered $300,000 worth of your cattle without compensation to look for a sick animal because one 49 miles away was found. The state plan includes a nice statement to this end that the state will not compensate the deer farmer for the animals tested regardless of results. You weigh that out and for an opinion on where the DCNR stands on the side of deer farmers.

If I have misinterpreted or misstated anything please show me where.

So you think that since 1968 when this was discovered and the millions of deer taken in those affected areas since that there hasn’t been 100’s of 1000s of deer killed and consumed that had CWD? The science does not currently support transmission to humans via natural methods.

Yet you and Mbrock both who are speaking on the states behalf are making enuindo that a significant risk is present when the science does not support a high risk of transmission to humans.

This goes way beyond education, and to the point of activism for a desired outcome which calls your motives, responses, and what is presented into scrutiny.

I do not support the Rights of Private deer farmers in regards to CWD.

I am not against them, either.

But, I do not know of a single one that successfully depopulated their property before fencing...and very few that have not illegally transported animals.

1. Is an opinion, from both your side and theirs. Yes it is legal in the state as to how well accepted and indorsed by DCNR is debatable. I know Chuck himself has personally told Deer farmers that he doesn’t care if every deer on their place dies as they aren’t his concern. I was standing beside the deer farmver at the BJCC when he made the statement. I would hope that Chuck would not spend our dollars advocating for high fence. He should represent the conservation of a resource, not the high fence owners pocket. Sounds to me like it was a reasonable statement.


So you think that since 1968 when this was discovered and the millions of deer taken in those affected areas since that there hasn’t been 100’s of 1000s of deer killed and consumed that had CWD? The science does not currently support transmission to humans via natural methods. I don't see where he said that it can be transmitted to humans.

Yet you and Mbrock both who are speaking on the states behalf are making enuindo that a significant risk is present when the science does not support a high risk of transmission to humans. I don't read it that way. I read it as the CDC and WHO have made recommendations to not eat it. Regardless of the science, there would be massive public outcry if the state gave away "infected game animal meat". You know that.

Wow, I am floored with the double standards of personal rights here. Seems like just the other day you were making a post about how you were rejoicing in having done what was right for your own business yet those same rights should not extend to a farmer.

What does depopulating ones own personal property have to do with the matter prior to fencing the property? If you toe the line of the deer belong to the public then by extension I should get to hunt them on your property as well? There has to be a balance of private property rights versus state resource rights and obviously it meets some friction where those two intersect. From the high fence perspective I think you are suppose to push all the deer out prior however I think this is difficult. From the high fence perspective the goal is superior genetics so why would you want to keep native deer with inferior genetics?

How many deer farmers do you know? And how many of the ones who you know broke the law have you reported? If they are transporting deer illegally they should be prosecuted plain and simple. I think in the early days of deer farmer there was a motive to do this however the genetics in Alabama are as good as anywhere else in the country so this doesn’t make sense. I know some were busted last year for it and they paid a huge price and should.

]1. Is an opinion, from both your side and theirs. Yes it is legal in the state as to how well accepted and indorsed by DCNR is debatable. I know Chuck himself has personally told Deer farmers that he doesn’t care if every deer on their place dies as they aren’t his concern. I was standing beside the deer farmver at the BJCC when he made the statement. I would hope that Chuck would not spend our dollars advocating for high fence. He should represent the conservation of a resource, not the high fence owners pocket. Sounds to me like it was a reasonable statement.
The original argument was that DCNR was against deer farmers. No one ask Chuck to advocate for the high fence guys but his statement clearly shows his sentiments toward them as Trey suggested. Further, do you not thing the state benefits from tourism, license sales, and economic impacts from individuals traveling to Alabama to hunt at these operations? Maybe the state should be a little more supportive considering the economic impact.


So you think that since 1968 when this was discovered and the millions of deer taken in those affected areas since that there hasn’t been 100’s of 1000s of deer killed and consumed that had CWD? The science does not currently support transmission to humans via natural methods. I don't see where he said that it can be transmitted to humans.
Go read the CWD is not a yankee post and see for your self what Mbrock says, or ask him will he and his sons still hunt if and when it comes to Alabama? Again personally witnessed him make the statement at a hunters night that if/when it comes here he and his boys will not hunt deer due to the risk. Again this was while speaking on the states behalf at a hunters night out. How does that not support my assessment of enuindo?

Yet you and Mbrock both who are speaking on the states behalf are making enuindo that a significant risk is present when the science does not support a high risk of transmission to humans. I don't read it that way. I read it as the CDC and WHO have made recommendations to not eat it. Regardless of the science, there would be massive public outcry if the state gave away "infected game animal meat". You know that.
[/quote]
Again go read Mbrocks post in CWD isn’t a yankee problem topic, or just ask him his stance.

[quote=Shotts]]1. Is an opinion, from both your side and theirs. Yes it is legal in the state as to how well accepted and indorsed by DCNR is debatable. I know Chuck himself has personally told Deer farmers that he doesn’t care if every deer on their place dies as they aren’t his concern. I was standing beside the deer farmver at the BJCC when he made the statement. I would hope that Chuck would not spend our dollars advocating for high fence. He should represent the conservation of a resource, not the high fence owners pocket. Sounds to me like it was a reasonable statement.
The original argument was that DCNR was against deer farmers. No one ask Chuck to advocate for the high fence guys but his statement clearly shows his sentiments toward them as Trey suggested. Further, do you not thing the state benefits from tourism, license sales, and economic impacts from individuals traveling to Alabama to hunt at these operations? Maybe the state should be a little more supportive considering the economic impact.

You said accepted an endorsed. Sounds alot like advocate to me.

The state and DCNR are two different entities. You can't pick and choose based on your argument. DCNR should not advocate for tourism as any type of primary concern.


So you think that since 1968 when this was discovered and the millions of deer taken in those affected areas since that there hasn’t been 100’s of 1000s of deer killed and consumed that had CWD? The science does not currently support transmission to humans via natural methods. I don't see where he said that it can be transmitted to humans.
Go read the CWD is not a yankee post and see for your self what Mbrock says, or ask him will he and his sons still hunt if and when it comes to Alabama? Again personally witnessed him make the statement at a hunters night that if/when it comes here he and his boys will not hunt deer due to the risk. Again this was while speaking on the states behalf at a hunters night out. How does that not support my assessment of enuindo?

Matt is allowed to think whatever he wants and have an personal opinion however he wants. I see nothing wrong with that. He can stop hunting tomorrow because it is in MS. He should not tow the line at all costs. If he said him and his boys will not hunt due to the risk, I applaud him for his conviction. I cannot see your jump to him saying science is wrong. He is following the CDCs advice.

Look, if you are a high fence advocate and want to bash the program, just say so. To try to twist words to fit your agenda sounds like a liberal democrat.

Quite the contrary I have not twisted anything.

DCNR is a state entity so they are infact one and the same just different departments in the same beuracacy.. It has been pointed on here routinely they are funded by license sales and routinely applauded for efforts to support increased outreach and license sales. Yet you draw the line at supporting high fence hunting which in fact results in license sales because you don’t personally agree with high fence hunting. So who is twisting worlds and topics to support their arguments.

I am a libertarian and strongly support ones rights to choose and follow their own beliefs, and quite honestly the firtherest thing from a Democrat although you seem to endorse some of their core tactics so maybe some self examination is in orde there. Matt is absolutely entitled to his own beliefs however when speaking in an official capacity those beliefs are irrelevant.

Again I am a research scientist for the past 16 years, and there is a difference between proof of principle/possibility vs practical risk.

Further I am waiting for someone to show me where my original statements regarding the response plan are incorrect.

As for being a high fence advocate I hunt public land, but I also believe if someone wants to hunt high fence thats their right no different than fishing in a pond or lake.

I said the DCNR should not advocate based on tourism as their primary concern. I stand by that fully.

Actually, I agree with their right to high fence hunting. I like Trey and I like his operation and would hunt with him any day of the week inside or outside of his fence. Where did your facts come from that I don't personally agree with it?

Everyone should get to have an opinion. That is exactly what Trey did and I think he has every right to it and to publish it for the world wide web to see. I also think Matt, Jeremy, Danny, the DCNR, and you have a right to an opinion. However, to state their presentation and/or response plan is full of innuendos and inaccurate facts is not correct based on my own research, multiple studies and the meeting I attended.

if by "we" you mean the Al Dept Conservation located in Montgomery Al then this is a damn misstatement. If you mean you and one of yer friends I may buy it.....

If you aren’t a democrat you missed a good chance at being one.

No one said anything about advocating as their primary concern, but there is a clear distinction between viewing deer farming as a whole favorably or unfavorably by the DCNR. The fact is that high fence within the state results in increased license sales which benefits the DCNR. How the DCNR views the deer farming industry is an opinion and matter/perception depending on where you stand.

I agree everyone should have an opinion which clearly you should see by my stance and views. However, there is a distinction between a personal option vs one provided while acting in an official capacity which is what I stated as well. That is an extremely slippery slope when personal opinion bleeds over to official capacity.

I never said their response plan, was full of innuendo and inaccurate facts. I said that they personally had made caveated statements regarding the plan. Further Matt posted in the CWD is not a yankee problem thread regarding transmission beyond cervids, regarding a proof of principle vs quantified risk. While at a hunters night out acting in a professional capacity he made the statement regarding no longer hunting if CWD is found here which is one of the other innuendos I referenced, along with Nigjthunters innuendo regarding the outrage that might occur if a contaminated animal was donated as if 100’s would be infected which is not the likely case.

The fact is according to the current response plan if CWD is found in the wild 95 out of every 100 captive deer within a 25 mile radius will be slaughtered for testing. Mbrock or Nighthunternis that what the plan states?

So jhardy you ok with the state seizing 95% of your personal property that you have worked for for the greater good? I get there is a perception of high fence as being a rich mans game but the fact that the current plan includes destruction of privately owned stock.