Notes from the Dec. 15th CWD advisory board meeting:
Prior to this meeting, panel members were asked to draft a set of CWD recommendations and forward them to the team lead for compilation in a effort to streamline the brainstorming portion and to see where the common ideas lie. Most members did this. This effort generated a 20 page document that we will use as the basis for our recommendations. The panel met with the intension of getting through a large portion of the proposed recommendations. Although many common themes were identified by panel members, the devil is in the details an we were hung up in short order.
We began by word smithing a set of general recommendations. Trying to get 18 members to agree on the wording was an exercise in frustration. When completed, we moved onto more specific recommendations such as establishing a new CWD boundary and renaming it the CWDMZ (CWD management zone) The members of the panel that lived in the current DEZ and HRZ wanted to remove the stigma associated with names of the current zones. The new boundary would be defined by locating the most extreme locations of deer that tested positive for CWD and then add a 10 mile buffer zone beyond that. The buffer zone was established using deer dispersal data gathered from an earlier meeting. This will shrink the current HRZ in most areas but push it out in others. Many wanted to do away with the boundary and return to the use of current DMUs but we voted to set a boundary because of later talks that would cover such things as carcass removal and transportation for the endemic area as well as defining a test area.
In the afternoon, we heard public comment which was a series of people thanking us for our efforts and reminding us that whatever we come up with, would need to be sold to the public and if they did not accept our plan that it is doomed to failure.
We then focused on setting deer population goals for the CWDMZ. In the earliest stage of CWD, the DNR set a goal of zero deer for the area which lead to the eradication idea. After 5 years, the agency softened that goal to 5 deer per square mile. Our panel chose to set as a goal, a deer population that matched the population goals for 2001 with a planned reduction of 20% over a 5 year period. It should be noted that all of our plans were set in a 5 year time frame for the sake of simplicity and consistency. Many members have heard from their constituents that they are tired of the constant changes from year to year and longed for a set of rules that would last for a period of time, to be evaluated for success at the end of the set term. These same people expressed concern that current goals could never be met and were not realistic. Our plan was to offer a goal of reduction but in an achievable manner.
The reason for setting the goal higher than is currently set came from a vote taken early in the meeting where members wanted to set a benchmark for disease reduction. Some panel members feel that a reduction in the deer herd equals a reduction in cases of CWD. Others suggest that there is no basis in scientific fact that supports that idea. Our scientific support team was asked about this matter and suggested that they felt fewer deer meant fewer opportunities of environmental contamination (soil) but could not say that anything above zero deer per square mile would reduce disease prevalence. Even if all the deer were removed from the area, the environmental reservoir remained and any new deer introduced to the area could become infected via that vector. I think that 5 years of social, political and scientific pressures have lead to a softening of the agencies stance on eradication.
Before the meeting ended, we discussed the fact that we still have much to cover but only one meeting left to complete our work. I mentioned that I spoke with Keith Warnke and that he expressed that we could have more time if we thought we needed it. His comment was that he thought it was more important to produce a good product, rather than to rush to meet an arbitrary time line. The group decided to start our Jan. Meeting an hour earlier (8 am) and stay on through 8 pm. We also agreed that we would extend by adding a meeting in Feb. The meeting adjourned around 4:30 pm. The next meeting is scheduled for Jan. 12th
Here is a partial list of remaining issues/topics for which we will formulate recommendations. Each of these is a category that has sub topics.
Season structure/ dates
Bag limits
Youth hunting
Year round hunting
Tags/ tagging
EAB structure
Weapons and methods
Urine based scents
Landowner issues
Access to state lands
Testing
Non hunter harvest/sharpshooting
Research
Education/outreach
Enforcement
Deer farming
Feeding/baiting
Incentives
Food pantry
Funding
As you can see, there is much to do. I do not think we will be able to thoughtfully cover it all in the remaining time and think more meetings will be needed to do it right. I remain hopeful
