BC Chronic Wasting Disease Surveillance Program

[KootenayKiller]

What were the results of the population reduction they just did?

1/100 in cranbrook was positive for CWD.

[LBM]

1/100 in cranbrook was positive for CWD.

oh I thought they were only given out 50 permits. So what are there plans now. Is there a break down to what was taken mulie /whitetail and buck/doe etc.

[GreyDog]

One can only speculate as to how it first arrived in the EK. Look at the map of confirmed positives, it is all over the 4-3 MU - there was a positive 50km South-East of Cranbrook. That's a large area with plenty of hiding holes for sick deer. It is likely present in neighboring MUs as well already. It's also south of Creston in the U.S., so that area will likely get it soon.

https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/en..._detection.pdf

It will inevitably spread to other regions in BC. If the government allowed hunters to hammer the areas where we know that it's already present, with increased bag limits, we could slow it down. Seems like the government would rather wait for the situation to get worse before they let hunters thin out the populations in these areas. Seems kind of dumb to me, but what do I know.

The thing is, this area, where one of the positives was, has been hammered and the population reduced drastically, well before the discovery of CWD in the area. Honestly, if the population is 25% of what it was, I would be surprised. This applies to my immediate location, of course. I routinely wander over about ten square miles or so. I'm quite serious when I ask if the rest of the small group of mule deer, which regularly visit the lick where the positive was found, should be killed. This an example of targeted culling. GD

[KootenayKiller]

The thing is, this area, where one of the positives was, has been hammered and the population reduced drastically, well before the discovery of CWD in the area. Honestly, if the population is 25% of what it was, I would be surprised. This applies to my immediate location, of course. I routinely wander over about ten square miles or so. I'm quite serious when I ask if the rest of the small group of mule deer, which regularly visit the lick where the positive was found, should be killed. This an example of targeted culling. GD

I spoke to a CO in the fall and he told me they would do targeted culls in the immediate vicinity of where positives are detected. Not sure if that's actually been occurring. It would make a lot of sense to do so!!


Regarding areas that have already been hammered... that is a valid point. I suppose that the counter-argument to it is that the rocky mountain trench has one of the highest natural ungulate densities, so if you were to curb the spread of CWD there you probably have to use a higher % reduction of the baseline population as you would in areas with lower natural densities. The number of deer interacting with each other and the environment is what dictates the spread of the disease, not the proportion of deer currently there relative to historic levels.

The other conundrum is that, as stated in the Cranbrook talk, helicopter surveys are ineffective for deer. That leaves only hunting data to estimate population densities, which is inaccurate. So, our wildlife biologists don't actually know how many deer are on the landscape. That makes it difficult to determine if we are at a high or low density, and whether we need more or fewer animals. Considering that white-tails breed like rabbits and are the most abundant, but mule deer, elk and moose aren't doing as well, maybe it would make sense to remove bag limits on white tails and leave things as is for other species.

[LBM]

So now what are they planning on killing more, and when will they decide its enough. Personally would rather have the 99 health deer left till hunting season.
Do you have links to any of this info would like to see the break down of bucks/does etc. You say they really have no idea of whats out there so
what are they really basing this reduction on.