So all of you realize, if you live in an area with a population density of less than 10 deer per sq mile, as in many north Alabama Areas, if there is one positive, the DCNR will require that all deer within their control area be eradicated. With such a low density, hunters cannot logically take all of them the deer by legal means, so get ready for the DCNR to take over your land and get the job done at their discretion.

" Only with permission and full cooperation of private landowners. Landowner permission will be obtained prior to collecting/testing any deer on private property. "

Reading comprehension is not a strong point for many on here. One question I did have Matt was the most recent testing indicated that "After 2009, county level sampling goals were set based on estimated population levels, placing the statewide sampling goal at 299 animals each year" then it increased to 500 animals in 2016. According to the infinitely wise Chuck Sykes, the Alabama deer population is estimated at over 1,000,000 animals with others estimating it still being as high as 1,600,000. I personally do not think it is even 1 million animals anymore but for the sake of argument, let's split the difference and assume it is 1,300,000 animals.

I fully understand statistical sampling and regression model analysis as well as sample sizing. Testing 500 animals in 2016/2017 means that the state of Alabama is testing less than 4/100 ths of one percent of the herd (assuming 1.3 million animals) on an annual basis. In the sample design provided, I understand and completely agree that if you randomly test 299 animals out of 100,000 you have a 95% chance of obtaining a single positive animal if (and only if) you have a 1% prevalence rate of CWD evenly distributed across that 100,000 animal sample. I would challenge that the sample design is invalid for 2 reasons:
1. CWD is not nor would it ever be evenly distributed across the statewide population as evidenced by the charts included which show the known infected areas over the past 20 yrs in the continental US. It is very spotty in most states and certainly not evenly distributed by any means.
2. Not only is the 1% not evenly distributed across the population, but that 1% assumed prevalence rate being used in the sample design for Alabama would seem to be ridiculously high at 1 out of every 100 animals being infected, which in turn would yield an abnormally low and statistically invalid required sampling rate to achieve that 95% confidence rate that the state is relying on. I would venture to guess that the prevalence rate used on the sample design should've been more like 1/10th of one percent which would have required drastically more sampling to obtain that same 95% confidence that the state is relying on.

These are my initial observations in reading the response document. Would you say that I'm correct in my analysis and if not, please explain why. Was the sample size abnormally low due to the cost and labor of obtaining and testing samples or was it low due to the fact that CWD had not been found in surrounding states, or was a 1% infected rate the point at which the state would be concerned? Please dont take this as me being smart or throwing rocks, Just trying to understand the state's reasoning with regard to the sampling plan developed. I personally commend the state for already having a document and plan of action drafted to deal with the situation and being proactive in trying to stay ahead of it. I'd also like to publicly thank you for providing the document and for your support and the information you and others regularly provide on this site.

How will it go?? Hey, you sorry azz landowners that s no better than welfare recipients with yalls entitlement program, will you help us out by letting us use your land?

That number is astronomically too high..... North of Birmingham doesn't even have 250k deer, period!! That would mean there's roughly 1M deer south of Bham.... there's no way! I don't know why we (the state of AL) keeps estimating the number so high but I've hunted Winston county for 10 years straight and Jackson, Madison, Lauderdale and Morgan within those 10 and dating back for 17. During that total 17 years of hard hunting I've never seen any evidence of there being deer numbers to rival what the state estimates our herd being. I understand it's much thicker down in South Alabama but if that's the case shouldn't the CWD response plan be segmented for the two areas since the density is so different?

Population is just as low in south AL as it is in north AL. Their deer have been wiped out by the doe killers as well over the past 15 years.

Oh yes I read it. No approved live animal test.

Currently, there is no U.S. Department of Agriculture approved live animal test for CWD. Diagnosis must be made post-mortem by testing specific portions of the animal’s brain stem (i.e., obex) or lymph node tissue (medial retropharyngeal lymph nodes). Samples can be screened using enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay (ELISA) or immunohistochemistry (IHC) testing, but suspect animals must be confirmed using IHC testing.

8. Special CMZ specific regulations will be implemented (Appendix 7) to include, but not limited to, mandatory CWD testing with designated CWD check stations, extended deer seasons and/or increased bag limits to reduce deer densities, prohibition of deer rehabilitation and supplemental wildlife feeding, limitations on carcass transportation, and where applicable quarantine and/or depopulation of captive cervid facilities within appropriate CMZ’s to limit spread of the disease.

9. An initial sampling effort within the CZ will require collecting 60 samples within 60 days (from notification of a CWD positive index case) to accurately delineated the CZ. As more positive cases are identified, the boundaries of the CZ may need to be expanded.

10. If additional infected deer are detected in the CZ, a new five-mile radius will be extended from the location of the new positive(s) and subsequent sampling will be conducted from the newly expanded CZ. As new positives are confirmed and the CZ increases, the required sample size will increase proportionately to increase confidence that additional positive deer will be detected, if present.
The way I understand it there is no approved live animal test and if a positive is found then 60 deer will die within a 5 mile radius. If another positive is found in the 5th mile it will extend 5 more miles and 60 more deer. That’s 120 in 10 miles. Nowhere does it say darting and testing. It says extending season and bag limits and control shooting. That means killing them. So what am I not understanding?

Just to put numbers to it 5 mile radius contains 50,265 acres. Or about one deer for 850 acres at 60 deer per.

10 mile radius is 201,063 acres. So, about one deer every 1675 acres at 120 deer per.

It's 35 ****ING pages!
I ain't waiting 35 minutes to eat in any restaurant and I ain't reading 35 pages of anything!
Want people to read it? Make it 5 pages of actual information.

The part about who reports to who and the time frame to do so is useless to us.

The part about who reports to who and the time frame to do so is useless to us.

Actually that is very important as it tells you a lot about how the state intends on responding. Look at the response matrix diagram it includes shooting teams, security forces, etc. That doesn’t seem like they intend on asking permission before proceeding, that matrix is laid out in a manner to impose the states will, why would they need security teams if they intend on having landowner permission?

Just a caveat which may not matter to many here, but as I have posted before the state will shoot every deer in an enclosure if they have less than 100 and something like 295/300 until the confidence interval is satisfied. If you think the state is willing to do this only on high fence operations yet defer to landowner permission on private land you are a special kind of dumb. An enclosure is private land and the state has made it known they will depopulate them if in a CWD zone and the DCNR and Chuckie are writing their own rules in regards to this so you can bet they will do damn well what they please when it is found here on all private land.

Where is the money going to come from to pay for all this depopulation? I don’t see it happening.

Yeah that’s going to go over real well with a large population of this state.
“Hi, I’m the government and I’m here to let you know we will be on your property eradicating your deer population.”

Lose/lose here.

Insurance companies.

Did I say I agreed with what I quoted from the CWD Response Plan ? NO

That may have been directed at me.

I read some, scanned some, and read some more.


God Bless,
David B.

Shotts, I stopped at the first diagram thinking I was at the end. Security team?? What's that for?? I believe we will find out a lot about this because, like others have said, it's probably already here but it is just now starting to be looked for at a high level.

Some of y'all are killing me, he posted a link to the response plan. If he does he gets blasted because it's to long, if he doesn't he blasted because the state is behind, if something gets left out the state is hiding something and y'all wonder why they don't respond to certain questions.

I can assure you I don't know enough about it to hound anyone. But I can't shoot a gun, be on a tractor or dozer, or even drive a vehicle now. I have gone to the end of the internet. Bored and this forum is more active than any other I've found. I still don't understand the purpose of a security team. What's the threat??