Saturday, November 13, 2010

Bowhunters says "Rage is like hitting a deer with an ax"

Reading about "rage" broadheads from other bowhunters is very disturbing not only only the savagery of this arrow but the inconsistency of the results and how the animals are nothing more then objects to "slice and dice". I hear how it does not "pass thru" because it hits a bone, break a rib, it "snaps off" some says it leaves such a large hole that even if the deer did not bleed to death they died from the guts coming out. The video is very graphic and is of a doe being hit by a rage and she is bawling and crying as the bowhunters continue to laugh and video tape. Below are some of bowhunters comments on "rage" broadheads that I found on their forum notice there is not one single concern for the animal suffering instead their concern is finding the deer especially if it's a trophy deer

"Shot a doe tonight with a 2 blade rage at 25 yards quatering away. She ran maybe 15 yards before crashing. It was not a pass threw, but it did its job. I think it broke 5 or 6 ribs on the way in. "darrink


"Broke a few ribs also. I hope the picture is clear. " Darrenbow


"I switched to the Rage 3-blades in 2007. I have shot 4 deer with them now and haven't lost one yet.(knock on wood). I have gotten some amazing blood trails using these broadheads however if you hit a solid bone like the shoulder or high on the rib cage I don't think you would get very good penetration. But then again if you are not shooting 85 pounds what broadhead will? This is the entry wound of the buck I shot this year. It went in high in the back and did not get a pass-through but the deer went 30 yrds. and fell over! " stillfishin

"Tryed out these wicked 2-blades tonight on a doe. All I can say is Wow what a hole. I cut 2 ribs going in and 1 out. Pretty quartering shot. She went 60yds. I had great blood out both sides. Very happy with them so far." Deer-n-Beer

"I shot through the leg leg/shoulder bone low on the 9 pt I shot last year. I was amazed that there was no curling of the tip. Head looked none the worse for wear. Didn't penetrate as very far, but wasn't because the tip bent. All 3 blades were intact, also." brdhntr

"The doe I shot with the Rage 2 blade was quartered away at 20 yards. Arrow (Maxima 350, 28.5", 62 lb bow) broke two ribs on entrance (4.5" entrance hole), went through the lungs, broke one rib in the front of the chest cavity, then broke the off side front leg joint. The arrow never actually came out of the deer, but there was plenty of blood from just the entrance hole." ACK

"Thanks, Give the 3 blades a try and you should see a big difference. 3 blades = more slicing and dicing! I didn't get a pass through on a quartering 200 pound deer week before last, I actually hit him in the liver behind the ribs. The broadhead was found stuck in the off shoulder. I saw him go down just over 120 yards, but the blood that came out his nose left a great trail. Thanks again for taking up our great sport of bow hunting! Keep up the good work!!" pasinthrough
9 months ago

"Wondering if anyone has used these out west. Switched to them this year. Did a number on my buck, but at 20yds didn't get complete pass thru. I did hit ribs, but worried about taking them out west and what they'll do at 50+yds. thanks" FNB

"I switched to rage broadheads mid season last year and was not able to use them. I shot a doe last week with the 1.5" three blade rage broadheads. The shot caught the liver and part of the stomach. The deer went less than 100 yards and when I got to it the stomach was sticking out the entry hole the size of a volleyball. I found it less than 30 minutes after the shot (it had nothing to do with being dead and bloated). I'm hooked!

I've heard of guys who hit no vital organs and the deer went about 75 yards and died because the hole is just too big. I don't think the broadhead itself can fail, other than the blades opening in your quiver. I also shot a grouse with one and took sliced its head right off." walleyeguy_12

"I've heard of too many people shooting deer and not finding them with the rage due to shoulder hits or lack of blood when it doesn't pass through the deer. my buddy shot a little doe about a month ago with about 4 inches of fresh snow on the ground. He had a horrible shot on her, right in front of the arse. The arrow went in not even half way and fell out 30 yards away. She ran a total of about 40 yards. No blood at all. " Czabs

"I switched to the Rage 3-blades in 2007. I have shot 4 deer with them now and haven't lost one yet.(knock on wood). I have gotten some amazing blood trails using these broadheads however if you hit a solid bone like the shoulder or high on the rib cage I don't think you would get very good penetration. But then again if you are not shooting 85 pounds what broadhead will? This is the entry wound of the buck I shot this year. It went in high in the back and did not get a pass-through but the deer went 30 yrds. and fell over! " ucool

"... I broke 6 ribs. 3 on the way in and 3 on the other side. All that rib breaking prevented the tip from poking through the other side." Heavy Arrow

"Rage broad heads are horrible, my friends and I shot 6 deer with them and only recovered 1 TG it was the big buck but even he ran 200 yrds and we shot him 2x. As for arrow and and draw..I use a PSE stinger mod. to 78 lbs draw 386 arrows and 100g rage 2 blades, shot my deer at 15 yrd through the recovery..but they did give use our money back so they stand by their word.." XTERRAROC
8 months ago

"No, you did make it through to the other side, you hit the shoulder and when the doe took off the arrow popped back out, I have a video of a small doe that did the same thing.

Hey don't like them , don't shoot them??" bowhunterjohn63

" Rage Broadheads?
I shot a nine point on october 4 of this year. I hit it low in the front shoulder and didn't get any vitals. I watched the buck run for about 400 yards then enter a corn field. i waited about 2 hours and went to find it. It ran a total of a mile and a half befor i found it dead in a ditch. The entry hole was so big i could fit my whole hand in it. If i hadn't been using rage broadhead 2 blade i would have never found it." csmigill

"The doe I shot had complete pass through without a problem. Depending on how the broadhead enters, the blade could be against the ribs or with them. This may make the difference of a pass through or not. Don't know for sure. Arrow through or not as long as you recover the deer is what matters.. " cosmic

""I shot a nice 8ptr last night at 27 yds with a 2 blade rage. Hit him about 3-4 in above the picture below. I think I hit the ball at the top of the shoulder. Arrow went in 7 in and as he ran off he snapped the broadhead and insert off and I assume it's still in him. I was 20 ft up in a tree. Found drop of blood every 5-6 ft for 60yds and that's it with 3 small pools where he probably stopped." ptrsligt

Not only are they inconsistant as far as bowhunters "good shot" with "rage" broad heads but it's expensive so when you hear the excuse of 'with the economy it's cheaper to hunt.." you know they are full of crock. Also can you imagine this barbaric weapon accidentally hitting a young child , your pet or eve an adult ? I don't think you stand a chance.

Please sign these petitions. Thank you!

SHARKS video of Troy Gentry killing tame bear brings to light the cruelty of bowhunting.

I want to thank SHARK for not only exposing this coward country singer Troy Gentry who bowhunted tame bear to make himself feel "macho" but for bringing the cruel and sadistic "sports" of bowhunting to light

As Steve Hindi of SHARK mentioned that the bear named "Cubby" when shot into the lung drowned in his own blood and that is one of the main way our bowhunted animals die. Whether it's a hit to the gut, lung, liver, and other parts of the body of the animals there is hardly ever a "quick death" in bowhunting that is why in bowhunting websites they have a recommended waiting time of 30-45 minutes before tracking the animals. The Animal rights activists that are protesting against Troy Gentry playing at Arizona's state Fair says "there was no chase, there was no hunt" which in fact describes exactly how bear and deer bowhunting works in America because 90% of the killing are done by a tree stand or blinds with baits and attractant to bring the animals to them, then they kill so overall there is not much difference of what Troy Gentry did and what 13 millions sports hunters of America does to our wildlife. Also US Fish and Wildlife is a hypocrite being that they kill billions of innocent wildlife by the use f bowhunting, shotgun, trapping, snaring and shooting by planes such as in wolves. I like to remind everyone do not pay attention to recreational hunter who tries to use the "true hunter" , "real hunter", "ethical hunter" excuses to act like they are not the same as Troy Gentry when we know damn well they are especially the bowhunters. This is not about killing for survival aka subsistence hunters this is about killing for sports and in bowhunting being that its an expensive "sports" theirs are not about survival.


Hunter showing other hunter how to make a bear bait.

Here are more videos of bowhunting of bear over bait


"Consider the physiology of the deer (and bear) who dies by suffocation, choking on its own blood, or the deer who dies after an arrow penetrates the diaphragm. The presence of a highlysophisticated nervous system in deer certainly suggests that their nervous systems perform the same functions as human nervous systems. The presence of the same neurochemicals in deer as in humans similarly shows that they feel pain as we do.
In recent years there has been a major shift in the way the scientific community understands the mental life of animals, particularly mammals. Presently, researchers in a variety of animal-related disciplines generally agree that in addition to being sentient, mammals are consciously aware and have feelings and emotions.
Mammals, including deer, are presently understood by scientists to have the capacity to
think. Numerous studies indicate that the mental harm that is done to an animal placed in a stressful situation may be more injurious than that done to a person in a similar situation because the animal's mind, in varying degrees, focuses more on the immediate than the distant. Thus, an animal, unlike a person, is less aware that the present anxiety they are experiencing may be temporary." Steve Nusbaum MA, DVM,

A Veterinarian's Perspective on Bowhunting


The horrible torturous cries of the black bear

SHARKS website on Tory Gentry

Manipulating wildlife conservation for special interests

Wildlife Conservation has an agenda - our taxes ensure unsound management

Thursday, November 11, 2010

From Deer Vehicle Accident to Hunting Accidents hunters are a menace to society!


State Game officials estimate a population of 800,000 deer in New York State alone, which is up from450,000 just ten years ago." Here is why deer herd number continue to rise and NY "sportsman" also uses Quality Deer Management, read the link and learn the truth on how hunting industry is deliberately producing deer for recreational wildlife killing . Please remember that the killing season is just about here and a DANGEROUS TIME FOR MOTORIST.

IMPORTANT! this is the season for high deer vehicle accidents not only because of the rut but the wildlife serial killers terrorizing the forest.
Read this simple steps to keep safe out on the road during the next 3 months and if you have teens that are driving for the first time and they live in a heavily hunted states it's especially important for them to learn how to avoid DVA's.

Here are the states most likely to have Deer Vehicle Collision/Accidents as of 2009

New Jersey and Nebraska have posted the largest increases, 54 percent. Kansas is next at 41 percent. Deer-vehicle collisions have jumped by 38 percent in Florida, Mississippi and Arkansas. Then come Oklahoma (34 percent) and West Virginia, North Carolina and Texas (33 percent).

Overall if you live in states with deer please read and learn.

Tip as for Avoiding Deer Collisions

* While you should always be aware of your surroundings, keep an especially keen eye around dusk and dawn. These are the periods of time when deer crossings occur most often. It can also be more difficult to see at dusk or dawn, since it is neither completely light or dark outside.
* One of the best ways to avoid deer collisions is to drive at a safe speed, especially in areas with deer warning signs. These signs are strategically placed in areas known to be frequented by wildlife. Follow the speed limit and you’ll give yourself enough time to react should a deer or any other animal cross your path.
* Whenever possible, use your high-beams when driving in areas with wildlife. Not only will they provide the light necessarily to see the road, but they can also help illuminate a deer’s eyes from afar, giving you proper warning. Flashing your lights at other drivers can alert them to a deer’s presence, but do so with caution, so not to distract them.
* If you do come across a dear, firmly apply your brakes, but try not to slam on them or swerve into another lane. While deer collisions are extremely dangerous, drivers losing control of their car to avoid them can be just as deadly.
* You could consider investing in one of the “deer whistle” products. These whistles emit ultra-sonic noise when driving over a specific speed and they are supposedly only audible to animals. Unfortunately, studies have shown them to be largely ineffective at minimizing accidents.
* Should you see a deer getting ready to cross the road or one that is already in the middle of it, loudly honk your vehicle’s horn. This will scare most deer and they’ll quickly make their way back into the woods. It also helps alert other drivers nearby to the situation.
* Finally, always keep an eye on the vehicles in front of you. Be prepared to stop suddenly, as there’s no telling when a herd may decide to cross, forcing the drivers in front of you to slam on their brakes.

If you see that a car accident with a deer is unavoidable, do not swerve, brace yourself and apply your brakes. Hitting a deer head on is a much less severe accident than swerving off the road or into an oncoming car. Most car accidents involving deer only leave minor cosmetic damage, however it can damage your radiator leading to an overheat and serious damage to your motor. If you think your damage may be severe, use caution getting out to inspect, as an injured deer may regain consciousness and attack. Otherwise, drive a safe distance away, pull off to the side of the road, and then inspect. If your radiator is leaking fluid, turn your car off immediately and have it towed to a garage. Your insurance company may require a police report to file a claim for coverage.


Plus hunting accident because you know these inbred psychopaths can't shoot whether be bows and arrow or guns. 


DEC, DNR, DOW and all your pro-kill state wildlife agencies will never give a pre-murder season warning to the non-killing public on how to keep safe in your parks and forest when you hike, bike, dog walk , horse ride etc because they want to keep the public believing that hunting is "safe" even though hunters continue to kill each other, themselves and even their children plus innocent humans and pets been shot by bullet and arrow many time when they were mistaken for a deer or other "game" animals. STATE WILDLIFE AGENCIES SHOULD WARN THE PUBLIC OF THE DANGER FROM THE WILDLIFE TERRORIST IN THE FOREST SADLY THEY DON'T SO I WILL. YOU SHOULD AT ALL TIME WEAR YOUR ORANGE IF YOU LIVE IN A HUNTED STATE AND KNOW THERE IS KILLING IN YOUR PARK/FOREST AND THIS GOES FOR YOUR DOG AS WELL. I AM GETTING MY SON A HUNTER ORANGE HAT TO WEAR THIS YEAR BECAUSE THE MORE I LEARN ABOUT HUNTING THE MORE I KNOW HOW DANGEROUS THEY ARE.!


Wednesday, October 27, 2010

Wildlife Contraception Response to DNRE Supervisor


From: Defenders of Urban Wildlife
Date: Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 10:17 AM

Subject: Contraception response
Hi, as some of you know I have had a dialogue on and off with Sara Schaefer, the DNRE Supervisor for Southwest MI. As you also know, Sara has told me (written emails) that GH does NOT have a deer overpopulation problem but a deer browse/social carrying capacity problem. And as you know, we brought Sandy Baker (leading expert in the nation on deer behavior and how to garden in areas where deer browse) to town in August 2009.

Sara also told me that in the DNRE's opinion, Ottawa County has too many deer so even though she does not think there are too many deer in the city of GH - she accepts any help she can get with lowering her numbers. She does NOT dispute that the DNRE policy mismanages the herd(s) nor did she disagree with compensatory rebound or the fact that the herds are artificially propagated to serve the hunting community.

That said, my latest conversation with her has centered around contraception for urban deer. When we first met Sara three or four years ago at the first public meeting in GH City Hall, she refused to even address the issue of birth control or take questions from the audience about it. You can see from her response below that she seems to be coming around somewhat. I have tried to address her reasons for continuing to not embrace contraception more than she already has.

It is long but those of you I sent this to are people I think should know and have this info.

Thanks for your ongoing support for our wild ones! Sue

From: Defenders of Urban Wildlife Date: Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 9:58 AM
Subject: Contraception response
To: Sara Schaefer

Hi Sara,
As I promised, I am responding to your comments on deer contraception. Please review the letter to the editor below written by Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., the Director of The Science and Conservation Center, who is recognized as one of the worlds leading authorities on wildlife contraception. His letter is in response to a letter written by Jerry Feaser, Press Secretary of the Pa Game Commission. I also attached an article in Microsoft Word on deer contraception by Peter Muller, for your review. I think this letter and article will address some of your concerns about contraception.

You wrote:
As far as contraception – the cost is not why we have a problem supporting it’s use. The issue is that it works fine with penned deer that can be contained in one area and individually identified (ear tags). The contraception technique is only effective when you dose each doe multiple times over its lifetime. With wild deer, they move around so much that it would be too difficult to make sure you get each individual each year. If you don’t use the technique the way it is designed, then you might as well put the dart with the medicine in it directly in the trash. Perhaps this is why you think it is a money issue. We would gladly use the technique (especially in urban areas) if we could figure out a way to keep the deer in one spot from year to year, and also be able to individually identify them.

Let me try to address your specific objections to contraception below:

The issue is that it works fine with penned deer that can be contained in one area and individually identified (ear tags).

There are several published, peer reviewed, scientific studies on deer contraception (see references in J. Kirkpatrick's letter) showing population reductions of 60% and 40% of free-ranging deer populations. Some of these studies used ear tags and some didn't. There's really no credible scientific debate anymore that deer contraception doesn't work in urban/suburban environments to reduce and manage deer populations effectively - it's a fact.

The contraception technique is only effective when you dose each doe multiple times over its lifetime.

This is true, but it's a safe and effective method of population reduction and management. Current hunting/culling programs require lethal weapons to be used every year in densely populated residential communities putting residents at serious risk. In addition, Allen Rutberg Ph.D., Research Professor, Center for Animals and Public Policy, Cummings School of Veterinary Medicine at Tufts University, currently has a four year vaccine in field studies, which, if successful, will only require the vaccine to be administered once every four years. Furthermore, hunting has proven to be ineffective in reducing deer populations, i.e. not enough deer are killed to offset compensatory rebound, and is why once started, it has to be continued Ad infinitum.

With wild deer, they move around so much that it would be too difficult to make sure you get each individual each year.

A deer's home range is usually small, and typically less than a square mile. That data is based on deer home range studies in heavily forested and/or rural areas, or as you termed "wild deer" populations. Deer typically don't move around all that much. In addition, in urban/suburban discrete populations, the deer home ranges are typically much smaller, i.e. they are not as free-ranging. These deer families are much more contained by roads, fences, homes and urban sprawl. So deer movement is not an major obstacle for a successful urban/suburban contraception program. I for one, know several of the deer families in the areas from where the GH City Council receives the most complaints.

There are a number of successful strategies for contraception darting:

1) Ear tagging, but the down side of ear tagging is that it's resource intensive and takes more time.
2) Paint darts. These darts inject the vaccine and mark the deer with paint to identify them, so that you don't dart them twice.
3) Just dart all the deer you see. You will probably dart some deer twice, but the vaccine isn't that expensive, and it doesn't harm the deer. It's not necessary to contracept every deer in the community for a contraception program to be successful. That being said, if you spend some time studying the deer families within an urban/suburban community, you will get to know the deer groups, their home ranges, and where they bed down, and can effectively dart the majority of the population w/o ear tags or paint darts. Again, I for one know several of the deer families in the areas from where GH City Council receives the most complaints.

4) There are also some baiting strategies for effective deer darting.

Below is a copy of Jay Kirkpatrick's letter to the editor in response to Jerry Feaser, Press Secretary of the Pa Game Commission, regarding the effectiveness of deer contraception.

Response to PA Game Commission by Jay Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., January, 2007

(In the Bucks County Courier Times, January 15, 2007 the following letter by Jerry Feaser, Press Secretary for the Pennsylvania Game Commission appeared. Because of space contraints, the paper could not publish the response of Jay Kirkpatrick, Ph.D., a prize winning wildlife researcher with more than 20 years experience in the filed of contraception and wildlife reproduction. His response in its entirety follows Feaser's letter.)

The game commission is responsible for conserving and managing all wild birds and mammals in Pennsylvania and conducts many wildlife conservation programs for the public. Despite these efforts that benefit all Pennsylvanians, it is true that the agency does not receive any state tax payer funds and is supported by hunters’ dollars.

However, it is not true that the commission does not sterilize deer because hunters do not want fewer deer. Hunters have successfully reduced deer populations in most rural areas. When addressing deer conflicts in more developed areas, the agency and hunters have maintained a consistent effort to reduce deer populations with hunting and non-hunting options.

Recent research has concluded that it is unlikely that using the current sterilization methods alone will reduce the free-ranging deer population that exists throughout Pennsylvania, including lower Bucks County. In addition, fertility control is limited to experimental situations because the FDA has not ruled the drugs safe and effective for use in wildlife and are not available for use with free-ranging deer. Sterilization also is expensive with an estimated cost of up to $1,000 per deer. Research also suggests that use of hunting, alone or in combination with other management actions, may be the only way to effectively reduce free-ranging deer populations.

As part of our urban deer management plan, the Game Commission is developing a written policy on fertility control and will update the policy as science and research provides new information. For the game commission, the choice is clear: hunting costs communities nothing, and is the best option when compared to an unproven, experimental procedure that is cost prohibitive.

Jerry Feaser
Press Secretary
Pennsylvania Game Commission

I shall respond...(to Feaser's letter on "sterilization." ) That said, or written, please keep in mind that journalism regarding this subject has been, for a decade or more, embarrassingly shabby, inaccurate and misleading and for the most part reflects a lot of passionate opinions and theories but little of factual substance.

At the outset, I would like to make two points clear. First, I do not advocate the use of contraception for deer, at Tyler Park or anywhere else. I merely convey facts, data, and scientifically-supported conclusions. Urban and suburban deer problems are local issues and it is not my domain to advocate any management approach outside my home city here in Billings. The Tyler deer are someone else's deer and someone else is responsible for decisions about their management. Second, I do not deal in opinions. I deal only in facts, derived from controlled studies, appropriate analysis and peer-reviewed published data. With that stated, let's examine the article's salient points.

To begin with, "sterilization" is an inaccurate and misleading term. Contraception, which is what the debate is all about, is reversible fertility inhibition, but not sterilization. Spaying is sterilization; neutering is sterilization, but condoms, pills, diaphragms, IUDs, and immunocontraception (vaccines) are reversible and by definition, contraception. The paper's editors, and both authors should be more careful about their use of inaccurate terms.

Mr. Feaser's letter is a masterpiece of hyperbole, misinformation and dissembling. First, he makes no distinction between urban/suburban deer and rural deer and the contraceptive technology, which was developed only for deer herds where traditional management methods are not deemed legal, wise, safe or publicly acceptable. The failure to make this clear at the outset pits the hunting community against the broad concept of management by contraception.

Second, Mr. Feaser contends that "...the agency have maintained a consistent effort to reduce deer populations with hunting and non-hunting options." We all understand hunting, but I, at least, am unaware of the non-hunting efforts to reduce deer populations. He had every right to make this assertion, but then should be compelled to explain what those non-hunting efforts are.

Next he states "Recent research has concluded that it is unlikely that using current sterilization [sic] methods alone will reduce the free-ranging deer population that exists throughout Pennsylvania, including lower Bucks County." This sentence is filled with hyperbole and distractions from the issues at hand. First, he continues to label reversible contraception as "sterilization" and that is really not a terribly complex construct. Second, he once again mixes the rural deer population of all of Pennsylvania and Bucks County with discrete urban/suburban populations, apparently in an attempt to mislead. At no time, at no venue, have I or any other scientist involved in wildlife contraception suggested that contraception (or sterilization!) could solve "Pennsylvania's or Bucks County's deer population" problems. The technology in question was developed for discrete urban/suburban populations where traditional lethal methods are not deemed legal, wise, safe or publicly acceptable.

Second, he cites no references for this "research". I, on the other hand, will be happy to cite the results of actual research. Naugle at al. 2002. Reproduction (Suppl. 60): 143-153 reports on a deer contraceptive project being conducted on Fire ISland National Seashore (FINS), for the National Park Service. There are about 15 communities interspersed along the National Seashore's 30 mile length and thus far immunocontraception has reduced the population by approximately 60%. That's not an opinion. That's fact. So that I may not be accused of hyperbole too, let me make it clear here that contraception is not a good way to quickly reduce a population of deer, or any long-lived species. It can achieve zero population growth relatively fast but it takes some time to actually reduce the population, but it can - and has - been done. Next, one might go read Rutberg et al. 2004. Biological Conservation 116:243-250. This peer-reviewed paper describes a deer contraceptive project being conducted for the U. S. Department of Commerce's National Institute of Standards and Technology, in Gaithersburg, MD. This population of deer has been reduced by approximately 40% through the exclusive use of contraception. I could cite several other papers but these will suffice for now. Incidentally, although it hasn't been published yet, the Gaithersburg data also indicates a decrease in deer-car collisions coincident with the reduction in deer population as a result of contraception.

There have been many other deer contraceptive projects, conducted by other government agencies (USDA) and academic institutions and proprietary companies, but none have been conducted longitudinally, over long periods of time, and at the population level. These other studies have tested safety, efficacy, and so forth, but not population effects.

Now Mr. Feaser next moves on the foil that most opponents use to discredit deer contraception. He states that "...FDA has not ruled the drugs safe and effective for wildlife..." and that they have to be used "experimentally". That is true as far as it goes, but Mr. Feaser fails to tell the entire story, and in doing this misrepresents what is actually going on. At least at present FDA is the regulatory authority for wildlife contraceptives (that responsibility will be shifted to the EPA, probably within the next 12 months). The usual procedure for the development of a new drug within FDA is to generate "pilot" data, which provides some reasonable but no ultimate data regarding safety and then apply for something referred to as an Investigational New Animal Drug (INAD) exemption. THis document, which exists for the immunocontraceptive in question here, "authorizes" the use of the drug by the FDA, in experimental settings. This is almost exactly what takes place with new cancer drugs for humans. Relatively few cancer drugs utilized for human medicine are FDA "approved" but rather they are used "experimentally". Thus, the FDA has deemed the immunocontraceptive in question as safe enough to use experimentally and we use it under FDA authorization. Now, the second step for the development of a commercial drug is, if no problems emerge from the use under the INAD, to move from an INAD to something known as an New Animal Drug Application (NADA). This step requires millions of dollars and many many years of additional research. We have never taken this step, for several reasons. First, there is no promise of financial return for a wildlife contraceptive. The market is just too small, thus the investment of millions of dollars just won't happen. Second, it was our philosophy that because most of the research on this immunocontraceptive (something known as porcine zona pellucida vaccine, or PZP) was originally funded with public money, over 35 years, the outcome of that research already belongs to the public and should not be used to generate profit for a proprietary company. That is a private philosophy, common to our research group and certainly not a universal attitude among scientists. In any case, we took steps to make sure the native PZP cannot be patented for use in wildlife and continue to use it under the FDA INAD. That is a far cry from Mr. Feaser's gaunt description.

Now let's add to that, that this vaccine has been around for about 35 years and much of the research focused on human contraception. It never made it to that market because (1) no one has been able to synthesize the product; it must be laboriously produced by what we refer to as "bench chemistry" on a very small scale. The failure to produce a synthetic form of the vaccine meant that a large human market could never be serviced. We labor here to manufacture about 5,000 doses a year. The second reason it never made it to the human market was the variability in the time for the antifertility effects to reverse. We see that all the time, in wild horses and deer and about 100 species of zoo animals that are currently under treatment. All the pharmaceutical companies could see was litigation. Neither of those constraints represent a safety issue, after 35 years.

Let's examine the safety issue just a little bit more. The vaccine has been used on the wild horses of Assateague Island National Seashore, in Maryland, for 18 years now, and what safety issues have arisen? Well, first, the body condition scores of the population have increased significantly (see Turner and Kirkpatrick. 2002. Reproduction. (Suppl. 60):187-195), mortality has decreased significantly (same paper), the vaccine has proven to be safe to give to pregnant animals (see Kirkpatrick et al. 1991. J. Reprod. Fert. (Suppl. 44) 321-325), doesn't cause changes in seasonal birth patterns or the health of foals born to treated mothers (see Kirklpatrick et al. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 6:301-308) and has extended the longevity of the treated horses by more than 10 years (see Kirkpatrick and Turner 2002. J. Reprod. Fert. (Suppl. 60): 197-202; Kirkpatrick and Turner 2007. Zoo Biol. 25:1-8), nor have any behavioral changes been noted (see Powell 1999. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 2:321-335) nor have there been any deleterious physiological changes regarding the ovary or endocrine system (see Kirkpatrick et al. 1995. Biol. Reprod. Monograph Series I: Equine Reproduction VI: 411-418; Powell and Monfort 2001. J. Appl. Anim. Welfare Sci. 4:271-284) I could go on, and cite dozens of other papers regarding the use and safety of this vaccine in other species (some 50 of them, including a lot of primates) but I think the point is made. Finally, the vaccine is a protein and ninth grade biology students who are paying attention in class know that proteins can't pass through the food chain. Does this all sound unsafe?

This explanation is a far cry from Mr. Feaser's attempt to use a sound byte, but that is what is necessary if we are to truly understand what is going on. While I must live with sound bytes and slogans from my politicians, I don't intend to accept that form of discourse in the scientific world. Let's move on.

Next. Mr. Feaser tackles the economic dimensions of deer contraception. He quotes a figure of $1,000 per deer. The cost of the vaccine is $21/dose (we, by law, must provide it at our cost of production, with no profit), the dart costs about $1.50, and the bulk of the labor to do the darting is where the real cost lies. Costs will vary from site to site, depending on who is doing the work and what they are paid. If you want to pay someone $80,000 a year to dart deer, the cost will be high; if you want to use trained volunteers the cost is less; if you use employees already employed by a park, or agency, or whatever, the cost is somewhere between. I actually can't say what the costs would be in any given site because of these variables, but I kept the books for the first two years of the Fire Island project and the costs never exceeded $10,000. That included a two or three air fares from Ohio and Montana to New York, and we treated about 150 deer. My math shows that to come out to about $66/deer. I wonder who estimated the $1,000 per deer.

Now Mr. Feaser goes on to say that "Research also suggests that the use of hunting alone or in combination with other management actions, may be the only way to effectively reduce free-ranging deer populations". If Mr. Feaser is talking about the deer in Potter County, or even all of Bucks County, I might agree, but we are not talking about the deer in Potter County or all of Bucks County. we are still talking about discrete urban/suburban deer populations. This is one more attempt to confuse the issues. And, if Mr. Feaser bothers to read the papers cited above, he knows that his statement is not factual.

He closes with descriptions of deer contraception as unproven (not accurate- see above), experimental (true, see above) and cost prohibitive (not accurate, see above).

I am not dismayed by the passion that accompanies this subject, nor am I dismayed if a community chooses not to use contraception. That is local business and not mine. What does upset me, is knowingly manipulating information, hyperbole, attempts to frighten people with skewed information and an anti-intellectual approach to debates that excludes facts and data and substitute opinion. Does any of that sound familiar on a larger scale?

Incidentally, lest anyone attempts to pigeonhole me in some social activist group, I have hunted deer for most of my life and I started in Bucks County more than 50 years ago.

You have my permission to share this response with anyone, but I certainly believe the editorial board of the newspaper in question should be required to see in just what kind of journalism they are participating.

Jay F. Kirkpatrick, Ph.D.
The Science and Conservation Center
2100 South Shiloh Road
Billings, MT 59106

Monday, October 25, 2010

Compensatory Rebound Effect (CRE) is why killing does not work .

You will often get comments like this from Hunters. "CRE is still junk science."Compensatory Rebound Effect is the reason why killing does not work but the hunters and the hunting industry wants to deny it and rather call is 'AR propaganda" or "junk science" . We shall see for ourselves if this is really "propaganda" or "junk science". First of all
What is Compensatory Rebound Effect?
"Reproductive rebound is a well documented population dynamic in deer and other mammals. Deer conceive multiple embryos but the number of fawns actually born is determined by a number of complex factors including nutrition and herd density. With competition for food reduced by a sudden drop in herd numbers, younger fawns will breed and females will give birth to twins and triplets instead of single fawns.In its 1990 report, "An Assessment of Deer Hunting in New Jersey," New Jersey Fish and Game offered a detailed example of this process. Its report shows that even during hunting seasons in which killing female deer was the objective (antlerless seasons), the remaining females had increased birthrates that not only replaced the ones killed, but increased the overall size of the herd. "
CRE is mentioned by others people who have nothing to do with Animal Rights.
"The researchers note that in each instance, disease outbreaks have worsened in response to the hunting.One reason the policies failed, Choisy and Rohani said, is that they didn’t take into account an ecological principle known as compensation. When a portion of the animal population is reduced, those that survive are left with more resources such as food and shelter. As a result of the newly plentiful resources, the death rate decreases and the birth rate increases, compensating – and sometimes overcompensating – for the loss."
Hunting Can Increase The Severity Of Wildlife Disease Epidemics
And GUESS WHAT? The hunting industry knows darn well about it and uses it to produce more deer, that with the use of food plot, to really "boost" the deer population. They are so preoccupied with fawn birth to create larger deer herd size and their main interest in the buck fawns.
“By keeping the deer population below the carrying capacity of the available habitat, more forage (nutrition) is available per deer. Thus, does are healthier, reproductive success is higher and more does are able to carry two fawns. Ironically, this can result in a greater deer harvest each year. Depending on the relationship of the population and the carrying capacity, an „optimum sustained yield‟ can be achieved where a relatively high reproductive rate allows an abundant harvest each fall. With high-quality habitat and increased nutrition, the percentage ofdoe fawns that breed their first fall increases (sometimes up to 25 percent). Also, a higher percentage of yearling does produce two fawns instead of one. Because fawns are born at approximately a 1:1 sex ratio, more bucks may be born each year. Therefore, in some areas, you actually can increase the number of bucks born by shooting more does.”“Quality Deer Management: Guidelines for Implementation,” 6. Agricultural Extension Service, The University of Tennessee. (last accessed November 2008)
Also watch
How Killing Female Deer at the Watchung Reservation Increased Birth Rates and Reproduction

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

Bowhunters damning comments of killing does, pregnant does and fawns.

"This doe right here came looking for her baby or somebodies babyand she was going to save the day but I'll tell you what, I laid the smack down on her"

You can see how heartless bowhunters are because not only did he use a weapon as cruel and barbaric as a bow and arrow but he could care less that the doe was defending the babies. Here are some more quotes on killing of mother with babies.

Quotes straight from the sadistic bowhunters mouth on killing of does, fawns, pregnant does and yearlings. This is what happens to our deer during doe and "antlerless" hunts..


Spine Shot Fawn

From the hunting logs of Suburban Whitetail Management of Northern Virginia (SWMNV). SWMNV is one of the bowhunting groups given access to Count...y parks to bowhunt.

Killing of does protecting babies

"At 6:45 am 2 fawns came in, stopped behind some brush and hopped away, not giving me a clear shot. About 30 seconds later, Momma came through and game me an open shot. She went about 30 yards and piled up. The fawns hung around way out of range for a while, but never came within range." (Two orphans now)

"Had an opportunity at one of the fawns, took the shot..clean miss. I couldn't figure out how to adjust for yardage ad size. My god they are little things. Must have jumped 5 feet in the air and was gone. While mama was trying to figure out what happened. Wack! Lights out. She ran past * (sorry buddy!!) and piled up in the creek I like it!!"

"Two of the yearlings did a swee -saw trot over to the decoy, a third pregnant doe came in fast circling right under my tree and then, in a stance somewhere between inquisitive and agrressive, she stared at the decoy and slowly stepped in toward it. The place she started that slow stare and step was at 15 yards slightly quartering away, she only took two steps before I let the arrow fly and the Slick Trick did it's thing. She exploded off so hard that when she crashed into the final tree 40 yards away, she snapped her rear leg at the knee. Thank to *!. Thank you for the demonstration at the meeting. That's one more tool for my bag of tricks.

"I shot the doe while the fawns were right below me. She took off towards the damn then crossed the creek and expired before she go into the back yard of the corner property - thankfully. I noticed the second doe after I shot. She and the fawns followed the first doe across the creek and paid their last respects. " "The doe stood quartering away for too long, so I shot her. She ran to the east and then down the sourthern property line and piled up about 5 yards from the creek. After dragging the second deer to my truck, I ran into a couple and tehir real estate agent who were looking at the homes for sale. I guess they saw me drag he deer by and asked if there were many dead deer in the area. So, I am still in cao and have just dragged a deeer past them, and they guess natural causes. I had a nice (polite) chat with them and told them about the property and what we do, etc. They were fine, but for the life of me I can not figure out how America go so stupid. Oh well."
Killing of Pregnant deer

"Shot this deer at 8:15 at 2 yards. She ran about 40 yards and piled up. All this with my backup bow, which is now my primary. I have included a picture in b/w so it won't look too gory. She had 4 fetus' but on was about a quarter of the other three in size and - no getting into my necropsy - I think i had already died. Still, 3 is a lot and I guess there has been plentyu of food for them. "

The doe ran a tight circe and dropped close to where I delivered the arrow so I drove another on in for good measure. Upo inspection, she was missing a patch of fur and her rear right hoof She was carrying three fawns...I guess the bucks don't care about look/physical appearance. "

"THWACK! She flew down hill towards the creek and crashed. Since it was still early, I sat for about another 45 minutes when a pair of deer came from the pinch point. It was two nubber bucks. The smaller of the two just had bump but he came into the killing zone. THWACK #2! The doe had two tawns inside which I hate to see but that's the way it is"


Killing of fawns

" I drew my bow back, then the fawn walked forward a little. Some leaves were blocking my shot, so I had to hold my bow back because the fawn was now facing sideways and would've been able to easiy spot me if I moved. Then he took about 5 more steps it was about 21 yards when I aimed and slowly pulled the trigger. The fawn stumbled then ran towards some down trees. We followed the blood trails for about 20 yards and as I looked to my right I was standing right net to the fawn" (a tiny spotted fawn, the newsletter had a picture)

"Bumped a fawn out while setting up down behind Kohler's drain field at Roseland..Lots of deer sign of mature deer all around, but the fawn won the reverse lottery that night."

"However, the youngest deer with a white streak on her haunch started racing around and doing laps in woods. Soon the other smallest deer joined in. He was a little larger than her, no by much. After they kep this up for like 10 minutes. The second deeer paused by my stand 20 yards away long enough for me to shoot. The sot landed true and he dropped after 25 yards." This comment is not meaninful to the Board of Supervisors since they don't care about deer or family units. It is just heartbreakig. He watched this youngster playing and then kill him.

Thanks to the 21st Century Deer Management For Fairfax County for the quotes.

Please watch "Shoot the mom, shoot the mom" said the bowhunter to his kid. for more audio of bowhunters killing mothers protecting babies.

Shooting doe with baby by her side.


Wednesday, September 29, 2010

In bowhunting, animals do not die in "less then 30 seconds"

The lie you will most likely hear from bowhunters.

"I've taken 50 plus deer with my bow, and I've never had one run more than 10 yards or live longer than 30 seconds. My 14-year-old son took one last weekend, and it was four seconds before it went down. It's very quick."

When they say "it went down" does not mean the animal is dead and in "tracking deer after shot" website you can clearly see that the animals suffer and die a horrible painful death especially in the hands of bowhunters. notice how uncaring and unmerciful these monsters are . Bowhunted animals do not die "quick" whether be Elks, Deer, Bear, Antelope etc. that is why you always hear bowhunter say "give it time" meaning time for the animals to die.

"After shooting the deer, stay in your stand and be quiet for the recommended time. A noise might push your deer away. He could be bedded down less than 100 yards away.

The deer could be "filling up" inside with blood, showing very little external bleeding. The hair from the lung area is coarse and brown with black tips. The deer will usually go down in less than 125 yards. Give the deer 30 minutes before tracking.

A heart-shot deer will sometimes jump wildly when hit. The blood trail may be sparse for the first 20 yards or so. A heart shot deer may track as much as a quarter of a mile, depending on what part of the heart is damaged. The usual is less than 125 yards. The hair from this shot will be long brown or grayish guard hairs. Again, a 30 minute wait is advised. But, if while trailing you find where he has bedded back off and wait an hour before taking up the trail again.

If the deer is dead in an hour, he will still be dead in 4 hours. Have patience, he will not go anywhere. Wait him out for at least 4 hours. Wait overnight if the deer isshot in the evening.

If a spine-shot deer hobbles off, wait a half-hour and track slowly and quietly. Look for the deer bedded down.

A liver-shot deer. The liver lies against the diaphragm in the approximate center of the deer. It is a definite killing shot. The blood trail will be decent to follow and the deer should bed down and die within 200 yards, if not pushed. A one-hour wait is best. The hair from the liver area is brownish gray and much shorter than the hair from the lung area. If you push the deer out of his bed, back off and wait another hour.

Animals, especially deer, do not start bleeding at the point of impact. The blood trail generally starts about 15 to 30 yards from where the point of impact is. I have seen deer that were "high" lung shot that never bled a drop outside the body! And a heavy blood trail takes a while due to the chest cavity having to fill up before the blood can exit the wound.

Once the paunch (stomach) is ruptured, semi digested food and stomach bacteria enter the body cavity. This makes the deer sick and it will eventually lay down where it will expire after a long time. Blood loss is minimal and slow and will almost always be internal. These reasons are why one should wait a minimum of 8 hours before attempting to track a gut shot deer. "

Here are more collections of quotes from hunters on "tracking wounded deer/game" that is put into a video.

"Ethical" Hunter says "let the deer lay up and die"

The "bowshot deer dies in 30 seconds" lie of heartless bowhunters.

Damning statement from bowhunters own disgusting mouth!

A person leaves a comment at a bowhunting forum and he write

"I was watching a hunting show last night and they shot a buck with a bow and it ran about 150 yds. I was actually thinking about it and am surprised that more people don't complain about it being cruel. You shoot them with a gun and 9 out of 10 they drop dead but 9 out of 10 times they run off and die later. don't bother me either way but i'm just saying that i'm surprised it hasn't come up more then it does. "

Then he gets banned ( I see it under his name)


Bowhunter 1989 Big Game Issue
An article entitled “A Call for Accuracy” by Dwight Schuh states: Our sport can’t stand
forever in the face of growing hatred. Archers must work to counteract that sentiment
and build bowhunting in a positive light. The first step should be obvious. Don’t brag
about hitting and losing animals. He goes on to say, There’s nothing honorable
about hitting and losing an animal; it just means you screwed up. Don’t brag about it.
Just shut up.

Comment under a bowhunters video

2 weeks ago

dang, atleast you've seen a buck, and got a shot off. 30 days-in here so far with nothin to show. lol, he'll probably go die on some anti hunter lady's yard!

2 weeks ago

@ChasingTailOutdoors - I gave em bout 2 hours to die, and looked 4 blood for an hour or so... But with the weather here being in the 70's, an over night recovery was'nt an option, so I had ta press the issue a bit...
MidWestOutdoorz 2 weeks ago

2 weeks ago

An hour isn't long enough for a gut shot deer, you should of left and came back in the morning. And tracked it. You don't have to have blood to track and most gut shot deer don't bleed out because the fat will clog the hole.

Comments posted on facebook in response to this blog

"Yes that is the best way to make them feel the pain and misery and we can feel good about it for the inhuman crimes they commit on and on..."

"Bottom line is that bow hunting is not a "sport", is a an archaic and sadistic practice that has no place in ANY wildlife management protocol.
If wildlife management principles were for the benefit of the "target" species; there in fact woul...d not be a "need" for a next season!
I challenge these so-called "sportsmen" to modify their egotistical trophy attitude to embrace philosophies that eventually realize a smaller and healthier population at the expense of eventually not having a "next season".
Oh, and also ban tree stands, baiting, bow hunting and mussel guns ....
State Fish and Game departments are pimps for the NRA!"David

"Everyone knows this animals do not merely drop. That's why in most of the videos they will wait a good hour before even trying to find the animal, as they want their trophy at the end of it. Real men don't hunt they are compassionate toward...s all living creatures. It's all about power for this sad individuals, they like to exercise their dominion over these poor defenceless creatures.
I have rescued deer before that were due to be shot, we used nets & herded them into them. Once caught we quickly covered their heads to calm them down. The noise they made I will never forget. How anyone could hurt these beautiful gentle creatures is just a mystery to me :(" Paul

" Bow hunting is as barbaric as lopping off rhino horns to let the animals bleed to death, as barbaric as poaching elephants for their tusks, canned hunting et al....leave the animals alone, they don't hunt us. What is with the human race!" Susan

"This is madness in its sickest form... They got no feelings or respect for any life form I am sure... They shouldn't just be bow hunted themselves, rather if I was there I would have stick up a Bow into their cruel inhuman a**es..." Bea

"Unbelievable!!! First reaction: gut....wanting to and feeling like throwing up from anger and sadness!! Second reaction: Anger continued....wanting to "bow hunt" a "bow hunter"!!!!!"Leslie

"Hunters are murderers and mutants! In my opinion they are not human, but a sub-human off shoot species from the human race. Of course, deer suffer and do not die immediately from bow hunting! I have found dead deer on my property that run for a mile from where they were assaulted. Even if they did die quickly, it is still murder. Hunters are still stealing the life of the deer they kill for sport! All of these dick-less wonders rationalize away their abberant, murderous behavior with, "they die quickly, it's a sport, someone has to kill them to avoid the 'overcrowding' of the environment, hunting is a natural part of the 'system', I love the outrdoors, I hunt to feed my family" , etc., etc, ad nauseum! Hunters are souls-less monsters who enjoy killing! That is why they hunt! They like to kill living beings! Human could not do this!
Thanks, for the info on this atrocity" Jerry

"crying again, f**ng pieces of s**t for brains morons, these are the demons we have to fight, so sad, they have to kill to feel like a man...oh god i hate these a--holes! pack them up and send them to an island to shoot at each other for gods sake.."

"What could be more fun than stalking beautiful, defenseless, and precious creatures then murdering them. What a wonderful accomplishment to be proud of. Ghandi said you can measure the moral progress of a country by the way the animals are treated. Using this measuring stick woud mean the United States sucks and the moral progress is in the toilet." Arthur Poletti

-"I won't watch that video, it would make me too angry and sad. But I will say that most hunters look the same...gormless, dull, unintelligent, and they're often overweight and flaccid. I should feel sorry for them I suppose, but I despise them...and I've never seen a photo of a hunter that hasn't made me want to smack the idiotic grin off their face with a shovel!"

" Bedded down? That's what this cretin called where a deer falls to die, as if it were just drifting off for a long winter's nap. Sweet dreams.

I lived by a stream for years where dear came to drink. I think they knew they were safe in "m...y yard." Even when they ate my flowers. Some were so tame. One had passed me, I whistled, and the little doe came back up the hill and stood there for a good ten minutes while I talked to her.

Yeah, crazy lady talks to deer. I told her how beautiful she was, then warned her to watch out for other humans, because some would hunt her. I hope she understood.

She just stood there, intent on what I was saying, as if she did. I will never forget her big, dark eyes. I hope she is OK. How could anyone harm such a creature.

How could anyone talk about what how many hours to wait before they begin to look for the wounded, ( died almost instantly) animal, depending on which organ was hit?

Or advice the "mighty hunters" of these gentle animals to allow the deer to die a slow, painful death overnight, if gut shot, rather than to bother oneself to go put the poor thing out of it's misery.

Should I follow their advice if someone shoots them in the gut?" Donna

Tuesday, September 28, 2010

What the government isn't telling you about mad deer disease.



"My son and I went bull hunting this weekend," boasted Tom Hauge,
director of the Wisconsin DNR program on chronic wasting disease. "We
had a perfectly grand time. We have always butchered our deer ourselves.
I may very well be having venison for supper."

What the government isn't telling you about mad deer disease.



"There is no need for people to be worried and I can say perfectly honesty I shall go on eating beef as my children shall go on eating beef because there is no need to be worried"click here for the video
17 year later John Gummer watches his friends daughter die from Mad Cow Disease and Prions are the same agent in Mad Deer Disease aka CWD which the hunters are "giving" to the pantries and the Dept of Natural Resource knows damn well about. It can take anywhere from 10-40 years to incubate but once it starts attacking its a quick and painful death. People from UK are still dying to this day from Mad Cow related diseases.

"This is the worst thing I have ever seen," says Tracie McEwen. "I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemy."

Prion diseases are so awful and the proteins so unpredictable that scientists take extraordinary precautions against infection when studying them in the lab. Patrick Bosque, a neurologist at the University of Colorado in Denver, studied prions in hamsters and mice, which do not appear to be transmissible to people. Yet he routinely wore disposable gloves, shoe covers and a gown, and avoided carrying his lab notebook or other potentially contaminated material out of the lab. Whenever he conducted a procedure that might spray or splash prions, he worked in a special hood to shield his face and upper arms. "Then you're going to tell me I'm going to eat deer?" Bosque asked. "I definitely would not eat deer I thought had been infected."

Is Beef at Risk of Mad Cow Disease Again?

Infected buck found 40 miles from Michigan's U.P.

Deer Disease and CJD in Humans 1/18/99
Headline: Brain disease a slow goodbye
Mad Deer Disease Hits Wisconsin - Hunters Warned
Health Officials Studying Links
Between Disease And People

If Mad Cow Jumps To Humans
Why Not Mad Deer CWD Disease?
By Lou Kilzer
Scripps Howard News Service

Mad Deer Disease: No Joke for Meat-eaters

Prions in CWD is the same agent that causes Creutzfeldt-Jakob is a rare, fatal illness often described as "fast Alzheimer's"  

At least seven people age 66 or younger -- all hunters or venison eaters -- are known to have died of Creutzfeldt-Jakob in the U.S. in the last nine years. The total number will never be known because there's no federal requirement that all cases be reported. Preliminary studies suggest, and some neurologists suspect, that CJD is more common than generally believed -- it's simply misdiagnosed as Alzheimer's. That raises the obvious question: How many people would die of chronic wasting disease before a doctor called it?
In a highly publicized case, three Wisconsin hunters who attended wild-game feasts died of neurological diseases. Two had Creutzfeldt-Jakob, one turned out to have another rare neurological ailment, Pick's disease. Tests are ongoing.
Another victim from Oklahoma died with a freezer full of venison. A 50-year-old Montana elk hunter died last summer; his brain tissue is now being analyzed at one of the world's foremost prion labs, at the University of California in San Francisco. Test results are pending.


Can humans catch 'Mad Deer Disease'?
Wednesday, May 21, 2003
By Michael Woods, Post-Gazette National Bureau

"Our own nightmare here in the United States is chronic wasting disease of deer," Dr. Corrie Brown said yesterday at the 103rd national meeting of the American Society for Microbiology. Brown, of the University of Georgia in Athens, is an expert on infectious diseases in animals which are used as food.
Chronic wasting disease, also termed "Mad Deer Disease," is caused by a strange infectious protein -- termed a prion (pree-on). CWD also occurs in elk.
It's a cousin of the prions responsible for fatal brain diseases in other animals and humans. Among them are Mad Cow Disease, or bovine spongiform encephalitis, which decimated cattle herds in the United Kingdom and Europe in the 1990s and spread to people who ate infected beef.
About 130 people in Britain have developed the human version of Mad Cow Disease, which is known as variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. The infection is fatal, usually within 2 years after symptoms appear. Estimates of the human toll during the next 80 years range from 540 to 50,000.


Human incubation is 20 to 40 years, but no one survives more than two years after Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) goes active. Unlike AIDS, CJD can kill almost all known species of vertebrates. Unlike bacteria or virus, Prions are not killed by several minutes of boiling, baking, chlorine, alcohol or by any known antibiotic or antiviral agent.

What Soffe and other morticians also worry about are the cases of undiagnosed CJD. The disease is difficult to diagnose without a brain biopsy or autopsy -- and CJD has symptoms nearly identical to Alzheimer's. There is evidence that some cases of Alzheimer's have been misdiagnosed CJD cases. Often cited is a Yale study that found that six of 46 people who reportedly died from Alzheimer's actually had CJD.

More Serious than AIDS: Creutzfeldt-Jakob

Sterilization does not kill prions. They can take extreamly high temperatures even surviving cremation and become released into the air after such burning. Prions are virtually indestructible. Hundreds of scientific reports describe how prions cannot be frozen to death, do not respond to any antibiotics or chemical treatments and withstand temperatures of approximately 1000 degrees F. However, only one study ever done (or released to the public...) on invasive, reusable medical (tonsillectomy) instruments in the UK, over 50% of the instruments were found to be contaminated with deadly prions AFTER REPEATED STERILIZATIONS.

Mad cow disease, chronic wasting disease and similar ailments are all thought to be caused by misshapen forms of special proteins known as prions. In the case of chronic wasting, research shows infection can occur even by proximity to sick deer.

In areas infected with CWD, up to 10 percent or more of deer are found to carry the disease.
Both are transmissible spongiform encephalopathies, or TSEs. They can both be passed from animal to animal, though by different means, and are thought to be caused by misshapen forms of proteins known as prions. These deformed prions eat holes in a creature's brain, inevitably leading todeath.

At the same time, the CDC acknowledged several puzzling cases of patients who died of neurological diseases after eating wild game. In 2003, doctors at the VA Hospital in Seattle reported Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease in three hunters; the CDC would not investigate, saying there was no evidence the men ate tainted meat. A 2002 study documented three Wisconsin men who regularly ate venison and took part in large "game feasts"; two were diagnosed with CJD and one was diagnosed with Pick's disease, a form of dementia.

CWD is spreading

The disease was long thought to be limited in the wild to a relatively small endemic area in northeastern Colorado, southeastern Wyoming and southwestern Nebraska, but it has recently been found in new areas of these states, as well as in wild deer and elk in western South Dakota, and wild deer in northern Illinois, south-central New Mexico, northeastern and central Utah, south-central and south-eastern Wisconsin, central New York, north-east West Virginia, Kansas and west and south-central Saskatchewan. Also, CWD positive moose has recently been discovered in the endemic area of Colorado

They (prions) are also impervious to radiation.”
We're dealing with something that science at the moment simply doesn't fully understand. Total honesty with the public is the only responsible way to proceed."
There is an illness in the wild, leaving a trail of questions as it spreads from state to state.
Are these animals healthy, or stricken with a deadly illness known as chronic wasting disease?


Hunters turn up CWD in W.Va. deer herd

CHARLESTON, W.Va. — Preliminary test results indicate the chronic wasting disease (CWD) agent was present in five hunter-harvested deer collected in Hampshire County, W.Va., during the 2008 deer firearms hunting season.

“As part of our agency’s ongoing and intensive CWD monitoring effort, samples were collected from 1,355 hunter-harvested deer brought to game checking stations in Hampshire County and one station near the southern Hampshire County line in Hardy County,” noted Frank Jezioro, director for the West Virginia Division of Natural Resources.

The five CWD positive deer included one 4.5 year-old doe, two 2.5 year-old bucks, one 4.5 year-old buck and one 1.5 year-old buck.

Harvest area

All five of the latest positive deer were harvested within the Hampshire County CWD Containment Area, that portion of Hampshire County located north of U.S. Route 50.

However, the CWD agent previously has been detected outside the containment area but still within Hampshire County.

The area in Hampshire County appears to continue to expand as one of the most recent infected deer was approximately 5 miles northeast of any previous known infected deer location.

The disease has now been detected in a total of 37 deer in Hampshire County — two road-killed deer, one in 2005 and one in 2008; four deer collected by the DNR in 2005; five deer collected by the DNR in 2006; one hunter-harvest deer taken during the 2006 deer season; three deer collected by the DNR in 2007; six hunter-harvested deer taken during the 2007 deer season; 11 deer collected by the DNR in 2008; and five hunter-harvested deer taken during the 2008 deer season.

So how do you safely dispose of stricken animals?

It isn't as simple as burying their carcasses, or even incinerating them.

Prions are simply proteins, not living organisms, and they can survive almost anything, even hundreds of degrees of heat. Placing infected tissue in a landfill simply removes it, but scientists worry that the prions can leach through soil and groundwater, and spread.

Incineration is possible, but it isn't as easy as burning the carcass in a fire. Temperatures of more than 1,100 degrees Fahrenheit — sometimes up to 1,800 degrees — are required to effectively neutralize prions. Unlike most bacteria, regular cooking won't help at all.

Even many of sterilization techniques used in hospitals, such as autoclaving, are not necessarily effective — though some may be when infected material is dipped in sodium hydroxide, or lye and heated well above the boiling point of water.

A combination of heat — about 275 degrees Fahrenheit — and bursts of unimaginably high pressure — over 100,000 psi — showed promise in reducing prion infectivity, at least in processed meats like hot dogs, in research published last year.

And a similar method has become the default process for getting rid of infected animals. Large vat-like machines known as alkaline hydrolysis tissue digesters, one of which Powers' lab operates, can essentially dissolve entire carcasses.


Infected material is placed in a solution of potassium hydroxide — also known as caustic potash — for at least six hours, at 300 degrees Fahrenheit and 60 psi, about four times ambient air pressure.

All remains at the end is a sterile brown, syrupy liquid that can be hauled away to compost.
"It's like a big steam cooker," Powers says. "That'll take care of the prions."

"Disposal issues are tough," says Barbara Powers, director of Colorado State University's Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory.

Venison sausage and mad deer disease /CWD - What going to happen to the people at the pantries?

CWD is now in 14 states plus 2 Canadian Province
Colorado, Illinois, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nebraska, New Mexico, New York (only from CWD containment area), Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia (only from Hampshire County), Wisconsin and Wyoming; as well as the Canadian provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan. 

Posted: May 23, 2011