Is CWD being taken seriously enough in states like Wisconsin? Here's a look at the numbers and statistics. You make the call.... Read more... The post CWD Assumptions appeared first on Bowhunting.com. Continue reading...
I thought the anti hunters were going to start a go fund me campaign because they are so concerned about the animals!
Until they found out the deer has to be dead to conduct the test. I would pay to have a deer tested before I ate it.
One of the best up to date articles I have read: https://www.realtree.com/brow-tines...ican-deer-summit-cwd-is-worse-than-we-thought
If you listened to this guy, you would expect to see deer dropping dead left and right from CWD. A little history of testing results. Iowa County, the highest number of positive tests in the state. From 2002 thru 2016, has had the following positive tests. 78,73,77,95,69,74,105,98,135,140,178,223,174,142,206 Do those numbers look like CWD is running away? You would expect that 2013 with 223 positive cases would be the year with the worst infection rate, but you would be wrong. 2013 was 14.09% where 2016 with 206 positives was 23.98%. How can that be we ask???? Well 2013 223 positives was out of 1583 tested animals, 2016 206 was out of only 859 animals tested. The prevalence rate is not going up that drastically because CWD is spreading that fast, it has gone up because fewer animals are being tested. Since tested in WI began 18 animals have tested positive for CWD outside of the Southern Farmland Zone
BLAbla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla bla Sincerely Patrick Durkin
Didn't we already do this once before? Looking at only the number of positive tests doesn't tell you squat. When you test fewer deer you're going to get fewer positives. We need to look at infection rates of the deer tested to see a trend. When doing that, you can see the trend is clearly increasing. Like I said - the infection rate is going up. You just stated that yourself. I'm no scientist but please explain this to me. How does testing fewer animals, which happen to have a higher infection rate, prove that the infection rate isn't increasing? Obviously the more animals you test the more accurate the data, but we're not talking about 20 or 50 tests here. There was still 859 tests conducted, which is quite a few. You may want to believe if they tested more animals the results would be different, but there is zero factual evidence to support that. And your point is? In that same time CWD has been found in a multitude of other states, and where documented is showing an increasing infection rate in those areas as well. The Southern Farmland Zone spans the entire Southern portion of the state from East to West. It's HUGE. Look at a map year over year of where positive cases are being found within that zone and you'll clearly see that it's spreading.
Justin, I've never disputed that CWD is spreading, what I dispute is the severity or rate of how much it is spreading and with the way numbers are being sold. Example, Durkin likes to say, 43 of 72 counties are affected by CWD. Makes it sound pretty bad. He could say, 18 of 72 counties have had positive tests of wild deer, doesn't look as bad. So why does he choose to give the number that makes it look worse? When he gives that 43 number, why doesn't he explain that 43 includes any county within 10 miles of a positive wild or captive test whether the county has had a positive itself? He could say that 93% of ALL positive test of wild deer have been in only 5 counties which would give an even better picture of CWD in Wi. They use statements like "9.4 percent of 3,133 deer tested in 2015 were infected, the highest rate yet" it is again what they don't say. in 2015, fewer deer tested positive than in each of the three previous years. 2012, 337 positives, 6117 tests, 5.51% 2013, 356 positives, 6312 test, 5.64% 2014, 331 positives, 5470 tests, 6.05% 2015, 296 positives, 2959 tests, 10% You may want to believe like Durkin that in one year, the prevalence rate jumped 4%. But I think it more likely that the difference in the number of tests is more than likely the cause of the difference.
