I think the idea is that even if one does get infected the deer will tend to be more confined because they won't have to travel as far looking for food. Some holes in the theory for sure. Either way I'm against it. So, you and I are on the same page here.
Did anyone else get a chuckle out of this line in the original article? Interacting in ways that produce fawns? Who the hell writes this stuff? On the topic of the original post I see zero benefit in the supplemental feeding of deer in IL or anywhere else for that matter. I believe our DNR has done a commendable job at helping to slow the spread of the disease. Why is there such a pressing need to feed deer to get trail camera photos of them? It's not like we have a lack of quality habitat or nutrition for the deer in this state.
There also been claims that the approach Illinois has used (sharp-shooting, increased bag limits) has been effective. BUT...From 2003 to 2017, the number of counties with CWD positive animals has increased from 7 counties to 17 counties. ( www.dnr.illinois.gov/programs/CWD/ Documents/CWDAnnualReport20162017. pdf ); Not successful by any analysis. Hence, eradication or even control of CWD does not seem to be possible using the most common approach.
baiting and feeding in a concentrated area seems logical on how fast a disease can spread. I mean, it works at the daycare my kids go too when they share toys and suck on them...
Looking at a single metric like # of counties with CWD isn't an accurate representation of whether that program has been successful or not. The goal is to help slow the spread as it's impossible to completely stop it. Yes, the # of affected counties has increased however the overall infection rates in IL have risen at drastically slower rates than in Wisconsin where nothing is currently being done to keep CWD somewhat in check. Here's a look at IL total infection rates, IL infection rates by county (focusing on the area where CWD was first discovered), and a look at Iowa County WI infection rates.
something else that nobody really talks about but just makes sense- with increased testing rates comes increased positive tests. As hunters and the DNR test more and more animals farther away from "Patient Zeros" there are bound to be more positive results; making it look as if the disease is spreading when in all likelihood it was already there. As Justin alludes to; it's concentration rates that matter more so than than general dispersal.
MI has decided that baiting/feeding contributes to the spread of CWD. They are ending baiting/feeding effective 31 Jan 2019 for the lower peninsula.
I believe this got vetoed, so it’s a non issue. Hopefully Chapin has enough to worry about with the Mahomet aquifer.
