EHD in south central part of the state consensus/observations

[Sligh1]

Dead serious ..... between a “reasonably large group of guys I know”- say 30-50 guys, I will venture to guess I know of 1,000+ dead deer from ehd last year. I do know 2 that called dnr about them. Only guys that found them immediately after death- which is rare. Most found them after they were rotting or after season. I suspect most felt like “too late, what’s the point in reporting”. I’m gonna venture & guess with some insight that whatever the dnr # is, multiply it by 10 EASY!!!

 

[Rjack]

Dead serious ..... between a “reasonably large group of guys I know”- say 30-50 guys, I will venture to guess I know of 1,000+ dead deer from ehd last year. I do know 2 that called dnr about them. Only guys that found them immediately after death- which is rare. Most found them after they were rotting or after season. I suspect most felt like “too late, what’s the point in reporting”. I’m gonna venture & guess with some insight that whatever the dnr # is, multiply it by 10 EASY!!!

I don't dispute that at all. What I dispute is all the noise that DNR numbers are crap. They clearly indicate they are not trying to give the estimated mortality total.

 

[fatboy]

I don't dispute that at all. What I dispute is all the noise that DNR numbers are crap. They clearly indicate they are not trying to give the estimated mortality total.

I agree, the DNR can only report the numbers they are provided. I spoke to a few officers last year that received calls and went out to verify the reported incidents.

 

[JNRBRONC]

Who wants the DNR stomping all over their farm in September verifying EHD deaths? Pretty much closing the barn door after the cattle are out IMO, not much can be done at that point. It is what it is, I’m staying out in anticipation of season.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sligh1]

I don’t fault the dnr for the #’s. It’s kinda “no ones fault” as most folks don’t even know about dead deer til way later. We all know most go unreported. No ones fault.

The only “fault” I would get into.... when we get into the whole “cwd vs ehd” seriousness. U might here quotes like this.... “ehd only killed 1,200 confirmed cases in Iowa last year. Cwd will kill all deer with time. Ehd is something that pops up once in a while and numbers bounce back”. That data is used to minimize ehd (especially when folks know the real # is a huge multiple of their statistic).
IMO, EHD can, has & will continue to create huge losses in Midwest. The same discussion going back to cwd can be asked “well how many dead deer did we find that we know died of cwd?” Which clearly that answer is “we don’t know” or “we only found a small # of cases but we’re sure it will always kill the deer with enough time”. The obvious “confirmed cases” on cwd BY FAR are deer folks shot & got tested. Neither 2 responses we hear are real fantastic or lead to a concrete solution or strategy. Both ehd & cwd suck and of course are very different. If herd immunity can be built for either- be awesome. Some claim it can’t for cwd but I’m skeptical on a lot of this discussion. Some do claim there’s resistance - then other side says “well, we think it only prolongs a deers life by XYZ”. It’s crazy & we don’t know. Still go round & round with cwd.... have to find a cure or herd immunity. Beyond that, with time, nothing will stop it.

Back to main topic- ehd- keep folks posted. Kinda like Russian roulette- hope u dodge the bullet.

 

[sep0667]

I don’t fault the dnr for the #’s. It’s kinda “no ones fault” as most folks don’t even know about dead deer til way later. We all know most go unreported. No ones fault.

The only “fault” I would get into.... when we get into the whole “cwd vs ehd” seriousness. U might here quotes like this.... “ehd killed 1,200 confirmed cases in Iowa last year.

This is what the general public see's and hears on the news & radio. By general public I mean your every day person, computer nerd, soccer mom, etc that is not a hunter or deer person. EHD was reported not just by the DNR last year, but on the radio, news stations (I saw KCCI report on it a few times and heard it on WHO radio) etc and they go off of the DNR's #. Those tv and radio stations don't tell you that the actual loss is way higher and those #'s are just what has been reported. So your everyday person doesn't realize its a way bigger lose than reported. They don't realize that say 1200 ehd deaths in Lucas county is actually not even close to the real # and how devastating it really is.

I'm not blaming the DNR at all, just saying that the average person out there doesn't realize how severe it was and can be.

 

[BJohnson]

Copied from an earlier post of mine back when total harvest numbers were posted for 2019.

IDNR deer harvest data - 2019 vs 2018

Warren - decrease of 31%
- 2019 - 1,957
- 2018 - 2,836
Lucas - decrease of 29%
- 2019 - 1,636
- 2018 - 2,294
Clarke - decrease of 34%
- 2019 - 1,305
- 2018 - 1,966
Madison - decrease of 12%
- 2019 - 2,508
- 2018 - 2,843

If a person thinks annual harvest represents maybe a max of 50% of total population, I would say estimates of EHD casualties could be 2x the decrease in annual harvests, correct ?? If annual harvest represents less than 50% in most years, then EHD kills are more than 2x the decrease in harvest numbers in some of the above counties.

The math would go like this for (use Lucas as an example - Warren and Clarke % harvest drops were also right at 30%):

2018 harvest - 2,294
2018 Population est before harvest - 4,600 (2x the annual harvest)

2019 harvest - 1,636
2019 Population est before harvest - 3,300 (2x the annual harvest)
2019 EHD kill estimate - 1,300 (4,600 less 3,300 or approx. 2x the decrease in harvest '18-'19)
2019 overall population loss from 2018 levels - 2,900+ (harvest + EHD) or over 60% of 2018 population levels

Based on many comments from the hard hit counties, a 60% population loss from 2018 levels could be possible.