I have to wonder how much time people are spending looking into things they are asking about. In under 3 minutes if a basic search I found "In fact, the rate of transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) diseases among humans in Wyoming and Colorado is less than the national average, despite the fact that CWD has been in these two states for almost 50 years. Further, research on primates and genetically-altered mice directly exposed to CWD prions have provided evidence that there is likely a species barrier that prevents humans from getting CWD."
From another web site "At-Risk Populations: • In theory only: hunters, meat processors, taxidermists, and those who consume deer or elk products (according to one report 40% of US blood donors have consumed venison obtained from the wild). • A CDC survey that inquired about hunting for deer and elk by US residents found that 18.5% had done so, with 1.2% having hunted in areas considered endemic for CWD at the time of the survey. Wild venison was consumed by over 60% of the respondents." We kill cwd infected deer and eat them and then donate our infected blood.
The infection rates are being grossly misrepresented as I posted in another thread. Here is that information.
Plus look at how many predator species predate on deer and have for years yet no one has encountered it jumping species to cats, dogs, wolves, bears, etc...
My father was commissioned by the Governor a few years ago to sit on the Wisconsin's CWD stakeholder advisory group. The research and scientists and researchers he was exposed to was pretty eye opening. The studies on humanized, ovidized, bovidized, cervidized mice was impressive as was all the possible paths of transmission. Research continue to challenge the species barrier and not just deer to people but deer eaten by all manner of critters then eaten by other critters then eaten by humans. (Deer to squirrel to human, etc). There is great effort to find every possible rout by which a human could get CWD since humans eating infected meat is not causing a jump. Directly injecting cwd matter into the brains of humanized mice (mice altered to excpress human genes proteins) likewise does no allow for transfer.
This makes absolutely no sense. They sampled half as many deer and the prevalence was twice as high. You're saying the just so happened to pick the 859 animals in the county with a higher infection rate than anywhere else? Luck of the draw? The argument I've heard is that the only deer people are bringing in for testing are those that appear sick already, which is what's generating the higher prevalence rates. Although there is zero actual proof to back this up and it's all an anecdotal "my buddy said" type of thing. The few people I know that have brought deer in for testing have had no reason to believe the animal did or did not have CWD - all appeared healthy until they were killed. Some have tested positive for CWD with zero visible signs of sickness. Others have not. If WI wanted to put this to bed they would mandate additional testing in hot zones to either prove that prevalence rates are going up or staying the same.
Hasn't testing budget been cut in WI? Also what is the ratio of animals tested v kills... These may also provide reasons for lower rates...
NO they didn't just HAPPEN to pick the 859 animals, they were just the one submitted for testing. OK there are three ways to think about it. The rate is 23.98% as the 2016 test shows, which means 1019 people did not take an infected animal to be tested. Other end of the spectrum, all 4251 not tested did not have CWD, which would make the prevalence rate 4.0% Or most likely the answer lies somewhere between. Probably the right answer. Which leaves the question, which end of the spectrum is closer to the truth. I can agree there are probably some infected animals not tested, but I can't believe it is that many, I would wager the actual rate is under 10%. Can look at another example Dane Country the second highest number of cases. It has been between 25 and 52 positives in all years. According to testing numbers, 2006 prevalence was 1.45%, 2016 it was 7.28%. Thing is, in both years there were 39 positive tests. Again I do not believe the answer is simply CWD has gotten that much worse rather the lower testing numbers are throwing it off. When looking at the yearly numbers, there have really been two points when the prevalence results has major shifts. and both times coincide with big drops in the number of tests being performed. The last one that really dropped the testing numbers was shifting to online registrations. I do agree in the 3 or 4 counties with that have resulted in 90% of the CWD cases, they should be testing 100%. It would take maybe $2 increase in license cost to generate enough revenue to fund testing those 4 counties at 100%. I'd gladly pay that.
