Jolly Rogers

Sorry ness, but I'm not buying into it. You see there is a border for the eradication zone and when you start allowing those on the border to bait than by the theory of the DNR, those deer would be able to cross over onto the area where baiting is not allowed and theoretically take the CWD to the deer that aren't in the eradication zone. Also interestingly enough, what will happen when landowners bait but don't shoot the deer? Farmer Brown has 600 acres and sees this as an opportunity to concentrate the deer on his land so that they will be protected from Farmers Jones, and all the neighbors who are trying to harvest deer on their parcels.

I would love to give the DNR the respect and accolades they crave but when they keep shooting themselves in the foot with half-cocked ideas that obviously have NOT been thought out, well I'm sorry but I just can't do it. I truly applauded them when they acheived the ban on baiting and have thought that was the best action they have taken to this point, but this IS assinine.

BTW, do you live in this zone? I do. And I'm not some barstool hunter who is claiming that I know the answer, but I do know this; 99% right is 100% wrong and people should stop applauding the DNR for doing something just to be doing something. They should be held responsible for their actions and start looking at finding the RIGHT thing to do. Step 1 would be to cease the eradication zone and go back to square one, start a concerted effort in finding the origin of this disease and a subsequent cure for it. By splitting your time and resources, you also split the effectiveness, and this problem deserves full attention!

TJD

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>They dont care if more deer in the Eradication zone get cwd because they want them all dead anyways.<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

Ness, what sense does that make? First of all, you don't actually believe that the DNR will even come close to exterminating all of the deer in the Mt. Horeb area, do you? Second, the average incidence of CWD in the eradication zone now is around 2.5%. So if baiting can contribute to the spread of the disease, what sense does baiting them there make? According to the DNR's own logic, lower incidence means lower chance of spreading the disease. Conversely, higher incidence and the disease spreads more. Besides, back last Spring when the DNR moved to ban baiting, it was stated BY THEM that hunters would probably see MORE deer due to the elimination of baiting due to less nocturnal movement. So again, why even suggest baiting?

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote><font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>I dont think the WDNR is perfect at any stretch, but I dont understand you people that insist their every action or word is crooked...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote> Crooked is not the word I would choose. Maybe incompetent, two-faced, dumb?...those might fit better.

Deleted User

[Deleted by Admins]

Sswpriz

Hey people, just keep in mind what I've been saying from the start !!!!!

&quot;It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear !&quot;
.

nub

I read today they also are planning to drop Earn a Buck. Isn't that nice of them, they wait til they drop their racks.

TJD

Nub, that's a classic! <img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle><img src=icon_smile_big.gif border=0 align=middle>

Mar-Jerry

Hey Fellas! The DNR is just using the CWD as a ploy to ban all feeding. They have been after this ban for years. I have gone to several of the meetings they put on for DEER 2000, and the only opinion that matters is their own. Nobody else knows anything, but they know everything. My personal experience with them is about Ag Damage claims. They wanted to issue me 20 shooting permits, but if I didn't shoot enough deer they were not going to pay my damage assessment, that they calculated. What the hell good were a bunch of dead deer going to do me? I couldn't feed them to my milk cows! The people that work in the field have been very indoctrinated to know that their opinion is the only one that counts. My Grandpa called this &quot;pig-headed&quot;! A pig always seems to have it's head on the wrong end, no matter what you are trying to do!!<u></u><u></u>

gunsnbowses

<BLOCKQUOTE id=quote<font size=1 face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' id=quote>quote:<hr height=1 noshade id=quote>
This is not the only case in Grant county that deserves attention.
The deer shot in Cassville area tested positive twice in Wauwatosa, once out of state at another lab, but our DNR tested it negative, with their test...<hr height=1 noshade id=quote></BLOCKQUOTE id=quote></font id=quote><font face='Verdana, Arial, Helvetica' size=2 id=quote>

Since when have the private lab and the DNR sampled the same deer? They've been playing tug of war with the &quot;suspicious&quot; sample from the Marathon County deer for weeks. The DNR refuses to provide comparisons to match positive samples and the Wauwatosa lab refuses to let the DNR have a sample from the suspicious deer. This is the first I've heard of these two agencies testing the same deer.

nub

g&b: Its happened a couple of times. One was a positive result from the DNR's test of a captive deer, the owner saved a 2nd tissue sample and had it independently tested. That one showed it was negative.

Tim-WI hunter

The 'moonsuits' referred to at the sampling stations, while not setting a very good precedent, were far from &quot;Hazmat&quot; standards. They were simply Tyvek coveralls. A bit extreme of a method to simply keep blood off your clothing IMHO.
A rainsuit would have done the same job.

Tim