APR's & CWD in Missouri. A Cautionary Tale

Similar documents
NEW YORK STATE WHITETAIL MANAGEMENT COALITION, INC. PO Box 191,Grahamsville, New York

DMU 419 Clinton, Eaton, Ingham, Ionia, and Shiawassee Counties

Full summaries of all proposed rule changes, including DMU boundary descriptions, are included in the additional background material.

I believe it s safe to say that the good ole days for whitetail hunting are right now.

DMU 008 Barry County Deer Management Unit

DMU 047 Livingston County Deer Management Unit

As the first cool front of the year arrived in the brush country of South Texas, a young

Implementing a Successful Deer Management Program. Kip Adams Certified Wildlife Biologist Dir. of Ed. & Outreach Quality Deer Management Association

DMU 043 Lake County Deer Management Unit

2012 MICHIGAN DEER HUNTING: STATUS AND PROSPECTS

DMU 038 Jackson County

AN ASSESSMENT OF NEW JERSEY DEER HUNTER OPINION ON EXPANDING ANTLER POINT RESTRICTION (APR) REGULATIONS IN DEER MANAGEMENT ZONES 28, 30, 31, 34 AND 47

DMU 053 Mason County Deer Management Unit

DMU 057 Missaukee County Deer Management Unit

DMU 056 Midland County Deer Management Unit

CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE

DMU 452 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

5/DMU 069 Otsego County Deer Management Unit

make people aware of the department s actions for improving the deer population monitoring system,

Analyzing your Buck s Antler Characteristics (For Antler Restrictions)

DMU 006 Arenac County Deer Management Unit

DMU 487 Northern Multi-County Deer Management Unit

DMU 005 Antrim County Deer Management Unit

DMU 024 Emmet County Deer Management Unit

DMU 046 Lenawee County Deer Management Unit

Chronic Wasting Disease in Southeast Minnesota. Drs. Michelle Carstensen and Lou Cornicelli Preston Public Meeting December 18, 2018

LEAPS BOUNDS. Growing up hunting as a kid in New Hampshire, I didn t. by Dan Bergeron

Deer Management Unit 127

DMU 065 Ogemaw County Deer Management Unit

DMU 072 Roscommon County Deer Management Unit

DMU 040 Kalkaska County Deer Management Unit

RANCHING Wildlife. Texas White-Tailed Deer 2017 Hunting Forecast

DMU 332 Huron, Sanilac and Tuscola Counties Deer Management Unit

Deer Management Unit 122

White-tailed Deer Age Report from the Deer Harvest

EXHIBIT C. Chronic Wasting Disease

Kansas Deer Report Seasons

Recommendations for Pennsylvania's Deer Management Program and The 2010 Deer Hunting Season

Deer Season Report

DMU 045 Leelanau County Deer Management Unit

Introduction to Pennsylvania s Deer Management Program. Christopher S. Rosenberry Deer and Elk Section Bureau of Wildlife Management

DMU 082 Wayne County Deer Management Unit

Making Sense of Selective Buck Harvest

ALTERNATIVE DEER MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR GAME MANAGEMENT UNITS. 12A, 12B, 13A, 13B, 16A, 45A, 45B, 45C, and White-tailed Deer Units

CHARLES H. WILLEY PHOTO. 8 November/December 2006 WILDLIFE JOURNAL

Hunt ID: TX-WDeerHogRamExotic-All-ALESGONZ-HRH-AULP

FINAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS BY, WISCONSIN WHITE-TAILED DEER TRUSTEE AND REVIEW COMMITTEE JUNE, 2012

A GUIDE TO UNDERSTANDING CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE

TRINITY COUNTY. Board Item Request Form Phone

Kentucky & Tennessee Semi-Guided and Guided Whitetail Hunts

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion

Deer Hunting Frequently Asked Questions 2017 Deer Hunting Rules September 22, 2017

Hunter Perceptions of Chronic Wasting Disease in Illinois

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

An association of elk and deer owners committed to the development of their herds and the cervid industry in the state.

The Lodge The main lodge is available to accommodate 11 people comfortably. It has four bedrooms with two queen size beds in each room. Plus three, ei

DMU 361 Fremont Deer Management Unit Newaygo, Oceana, N. Muskegon Counties

Deer Management Unit 249

AFWA Best Management Practices for Prevention, Surveillance, and Management of Chronic Wasting Disease

ARE WHITE-TAILED DEER VERMIN?

NORTH DAKOTA STATE REPORT June 2016

IN PROGRESS BIG GAME HARVEST REPORTS FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH Energy and Resource Development

DMU 073 Saginaw County Deer Management Unit

Deerscaping with Neil Dougherty of NorthCountry Whitetails

Deer Management Unit 255

Big Game Season Structure, Background and Context

U9-U10 Teaching Formation

MANAGED LANDS DEER PERMITS WHITE-TAILED DEER PROGRAM INFORMATION General Information

Deer Management Unit 252

Job Title: Game Management, Subsection B Game Management Mountain Lion. SPECIES: Mountain Lion

Deer Management Unit 152

White-Tailed Deer Management FAQ

A Hunter's ~uide to Aging and. judging Live white-tailed Deer in the southeast

SUMMARY REPORT Managed Archery Program Mt. Lebanon, Pennsylvania. Submitted by Dr. Anthony J. DeNicola White Buffalo Inc.

DEER HUNT RESULTS ON ALABAMA WILDLIFE MANAGEMENT AREAS ANNUAL REPORT, CHRISTOPHER W. COOK STUDY LEADER MAY, 2006

Hunt ID: 5083-G-L-4295-MDeerWDeerAntelopeElk-CO-105-IO9WAK-C9OK-A1ND-Trophy Hunts Only

Biologist s Answer: What are your goals? Deer Management. Define goals, objectives. Manager s Question: Should I cull or shoot spikes?

Running head: CHILDREN AND HUNTING 1. Children and Hunting. Student McStudentpants. Brigham Young University Idaho

CWD 102 for Managers. Chronic Wasting Disease - the beginnings Colorado Univ. of Wyoming

FISH AND WILDLIFE BRANCH NATURAL RESOURCES DIVISION DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY AND RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT

Curriculum Map EXPLORE ENGAGE - ENTRUST. Crossbeam Outdoors, Inc. All Rights Reserved

Bison Identification Guide and Quiz

MANAGED LANDS DEER PROGRAM INFORMATION. General Requirements

Crease Play. The Crease Defined. Teaching Crease Play. Individual Crease Play

Report to the Joint Standing Committee on Inland Fisheries and Wildlife

Hunt ID: KS-WDeerTurkey-All-DRO-Hans

RYAN WALKER, New Mexico Department of Game and Fish, P. O. Box 1145, Raton, NM 87740, (575) ,

Secretary Game Animal Panel PO Box 9134 Addington CHRISTCHURCH 8243

Archery Gun Muzzleloader Total Bull Cow Bull Cow Bull Cow Bull Cow

PREDATOR CONTROL AND DEER MANAGEMENT: AN EAST TEXAS PERSPECTIVE

to intensify their search for does. This courtship activity escalates to a feverish pitch

Cariboo-Chilcotin (Region 5) Mule Deer: Frequently Asked Questions

Thumb Area Branch QDMA Newsletter

by Jason Abraham SEPTEMBER-OCTOBER 2005

Alaska Yukon and Canada Moose

Quality Deer Management and Prescribed Fire Natural Partners in Wildlife and Habitat Conservation

Monitoring Population Trends of White-tailed Deer in Minnesota Marrett Grund, Farmland Wildlife Populations and Research Group

Rub Lines. Habitat Plans. and. Knowledge of preferred buck rubbing locations can help you develop a habitat plan that enhances hunting success.

WADE WEST INCENTIVE TAGS 2016 NDOW- REPORTING BIOLOGIST SCOTT ROBERTS

Whitetail Deer. Season Forecast. The rules have changed, but the tradition remains! Are you ready for deer season?

Transcription:

APR's & CWD in Missouri A Cautionary Tale The Concerned Sportsmen of Michigan April 13, 2017

THE CONCERNED SPORTSMEN OF MICHIGAN Dedicated to protecting and promoting Michigan's Whitetail Deer resource, through the promotion of responsible, science based policies and regulations. www.concernedsportsmen.net Public Comment - 4-13 -17 Today I'd like to talk a little bit about APR's and CWD and the nexus between the two. When looking at other states that are dealing with CWD, Michigan today seems to most resemble Missouri in 2011 & 2012, when CWD was first discovered in the free ranging deer herd in that state. There may be some valuable lessons to be learned by looking at what they did and also what they did not do, when faced with the threat of CWD. Like Michigan, Missouri had been experimenting with Mandatory APR's in a number of Counties, prior to CWD first being identified. In 2004, APR's were implemented in 32 counties and after 3 years, those regulations were expanded to cover 65 Counties in Missouri. When CWD was first identified in Missouri in 2011, hunters had been hunting under APR's for 7 seasons and the practice of protecting yearling bucks, to advance the buck age structure within the herd, was becoming well entrenched. During normal conditions, the goal of protecting younger bucks and creating greater numbers of older bucks, may be a reasonable one. But when CWD comes into the picture, conditions are no longer normal. From a disease mitigation standpoint, protecting yearling bucks and creating greater numbers of older bucks is the exact opposite of what you want to achieve with your mitigation efforts. When Missouri first identified CWD in the free ranging herd in 2011, they had to decide whether or not to continue with APR's while attempting to limit the spread of the disease. The approach that they took could be viewed as a conservative one. They rescinded APR's in a 6 County CWD containment zone but kept them in place in 59 other Counties in Missouri. For the first three years under that policy, it appeared that the containment efforts were working as only 5 new positives were discovered in 2012 and none were found in 2013. There was even some pressure from sportsmen to re-implement APR's in the Containment zone after no new positives were found in 2013. As Dr. Straka mentioned last month, however, mitigating CWD is a marathon, not a sprint.

In 2014, the number of CWD positive deer almost doubled with 9 new positives and the disease was found in a new county outside of the CWD Containment zone, indicating that it was spreading. In response Missouri expanded the Containment zone and rescinded APR's in 13 more Counties. But they continued to leave APR's in place in 46 other Counties in Missouri. Over the next several years, this pattern would repeat itself, with additional positives being found outside of the established Containment zones and APR's being rescinded in response in more counties every year. It's likely that next year APR's will remain in approx. 30 Counties, with a regulatory map that is starting to resemble a patchwork quilt. In a letter to me, Missouri Biologist Jason Sumners compared these new positives found outside of established Containment zones as "Sparks". His campfire analogy is a good one. You can clear an area immediately around a campfire and under normal conditions that will stop a fire from spreading. But under abnormal conditions, like when it's windy, the wind can carry a spark outside of the area that you cleared and it can start a new fire. Missouri cleared a small area around their CWD fire by rescinding APR's in a limited number of Counties but unfortunately that was not enough and sparks continued to spread into Counties where yearling bucks were being protected by APR's, allowing those sparks to smolder and eventually create new fires. Those new fires create more sparks and the spread is accelerated. The result in Missouri is that in the last 5 years, CWD has spread geographically 150 miles from that original CWD campfire. As we talked about last month, until additional testing occurs in Michigan outside of the current CWD zone, we have no idea how far or if any "sparks" have already spread in Michigan. We currently have several stakeholder groups in Michigan lobbying for the renewal of APR's in 12 Counties in the NLP and for potentially expanding those regulations on a statewide basis. To continue the campfire analogy, that would be analogous to throwing a bucket of gasoline on a smoldering CWD fire. I realize that many hunters who support APR's and who want to see greater numbers of large racked bucks will be unhappy if that does not happen. Their desires are noted. But the unfortunate reality for them is that CWD mitigation efforts and APR's are simply not compatible. I was struck by several comments that I came across recently on a Missouri hunting forum, in a discussion about CWD spreading across other states. Two comments made by Missouri hunters who have been dealing with the disease for six years now, stood out.

The first comment was "Someday, when it's established everywhere, people will finally realize how bad CWD really is." The other hunter responded, "Yep, there will be no do-overs". He's exactly right. We have one shot to deal with this disease in the most effective way possible, to attempt to limit the spread and control the prevalence rate. One shot, with no do-overs if we make the wrong decision or ignore the serious reality of this situation. The decisions you make in the next several months will lay the groundwork for what the course of this disease will be over the next 5 or so years. Attached is a map showing the current regulations that we have in the Lower Peninsula. The red circle shows the geographic range into which CWD could potentially spread over the next five years, based on what has actually occurred in Missouri. Instead of taking a piece-meal approach to implementing and rescinding APR's as Missouri did, we support a moratorium on APR's in any county that falls within the 150 mile radius indicated on that map, for the next regulatory cycle. It's vital that we contain those sparks so that the fire does not spread, because, once again, there will be no do-overs. Thank you

2004 - Missouri Harvest Restrictions In 2004 Missouri implemented an experimental Mandatory Antler Point Restriction in 32 Counties. This regulation was designed to increase harvest pressure on Does and also to protect yearling bucks, to increase the number of bucks reaching older age classes.

2008 - Missouri Harvest Restrictions After the three year test period, the number of counties subject to MAPR s was expanded to 65. Although the goal of increased doe harvest was not realized in the Northern test Counties, the regulation proved popular among hunters due to increasing numbers of older bucks.

2011 - Missouri Harvest Restrictions Removed In 2011, the first cloud appeared on the horizon when 5 deer tested positive for CWD. MAPR s were lifted in a six County CWD containment zone. MAPR s had proved popular and many hunters in the containment zone who had been hunting under MAPR s for 7 years continued to practice harvest restrictions on a voluntary basis.

2014 - Missouri Harvest Restrictions Removed In 2012, 5 deer tested positive and in 2013 zero positives were found. Missouri felt hopeful that the outbreak had been contained and some hunters started to lobby for bringing back MAPR s in the counties where they had been removed. Unfortunately, in 2014,16 new positives were found including one in a county over 100 miles from the location of the index case from 2011. Missouri reacted by removing MAPR s from 13 additional counties but left them in place in 46 Counties.

2015 - Missouri Harvest Restrictions Removed In 2015, 7 more positives were found and the geographic distribution of the disease continued to spread to another county located outside of the established containment zone. In response, Missouri expanded the containment zone and removed MAPR s from 6 additional counties, leaving the harvest regulations in place in 40 Counties.

2016 - Missouri Harvest Restrictions Removed In 2016, 9 more deer tested positive for CWD and once again the disease took a geographic leap outside of the established containment zone. CWD was found in 2 mature bucks in St. Clair County, approx. 80 miles from the nearest deer previously testing positive for the disease and 150 miles from the original index case from 2011.

2017 - Missouri Harvest Restrictions (Anticipated) Removed We can anticipate that Missouri will further modify the containment zone this year due to the further geograhic spread of the disease. It s likely that MAPR s will be removed from another 7-8 Counties, which will leave MAPR s in place in Approx. 30 Counties.

Current Michigan Harvest Restrictions - MAPR s - Hunters Choice APR s - Mecosta CWD Positives - CWD Containment Zone 5 year spread projection based on actual distance CWD spread in Missouri during the first 5 years after detection.