Ethics of CWD

[Shrek]

Is it ethical to apply for and hunt an area known to have CWD infected animals if you are not willing to eat a CWD positive animal ? My personal opinion is that it is not ethical to hunt an otherwise edible animal when you have every intention to waste it when there is no proven danger of transmission.

 

[WCB]

Ethics and Morals are personal. I don't have a problem with it if someone gets it tested and then makes a decision. I am not a fan of these "cull" hunts where guys go to by cheap tags just to shoot a bunch of stuff with no intentions of even finding out the results and just forfeit the deer. But, again that is my personal ethical view.

 

[Coveyleader]

I'd hunt without losing sleep over it. If I killed an animal I'd test it and go from there. Throwing it out wouldn't bother me in the slightest if it tested positive other than all the effort it took to get it out of the woods.

If waste is a concern, why not shoot animals in the head vs near the shoulders when tons of meat is "wasted".

 

[ahhyut]

It is aligned with my morals and values to shoot a deer, have it tested, and discard it if positive (following all best practices). Worst case scenario you take a CWD positive deer out of the ecosystem and help to prevent its spread. If you are the type of person who would shoot it, not test it, and use it for coyote bait in a non-CWD area, then yes, there is a huge ethics violation issue.

 

[pods8 (Rugged Stitching)]

If the rate is super high and you know you're very likely to waste an animal then I'd personally not be down with that. But there are "positive" places that are like 1-5%, to chances are you'll get a clean animal but if you don't and don't want to eat that specific animal I wouldn't take issue with it.

Either way if you harvest a CWD critter you've atleast removed it from spreading more prions around (granted the kill site is a hot spot now).

 

[Desk Jockey]

It is aligned with my morals and values to shoot a deer, have it tested, and discard it if positive (following all best practices). Worst case scenario you take a CWD positive deer out of the ecosystem and help to prevent its spread. If you are the type of person who would shoot it, not test it, and use it for coyote bait in a non-CWD area, then yes, there is a huge ethics violation issue.

This about sums it up. Read an interesting q&a summary from Doug Duren of meateater fame saying he would not eat a deer he knew to be positive. While I suspect (<<<<beware of bro-science opinion>>>>) if CWD is going to jump a species, it will likely be to live stock, I wouldn’t eat something I knew to be positive. Mad cow disease was a bovine issue until it wasn’t. I am moving to non-lead ammo as well. Yeah, I know. Blasphemy. So be it.

Besides, if you take the food component out of the equation my interest in hunting an many animals drops quite a bit. Close to zero, In fact. Unless I was part of a cull program or something I can’t just see shooting deer solely for the sake of the kill.

 

[ahhyut]

If the rate is super high and you know you're very likely to waste an animal then I'd personally not be down with that. But there are "positive" places that are like 1-5%, to chances are you'll get a clean animal but if you don't and don't want to eat that specific animal I wouldn't take issue with it.

Either way if you harvest a CWD critter you've atleast removed it from spreading more prions around (granted the kill site is a hot spot now).

I echo that. I should add that this is whether or not it is within your ethic. It doesn't mean it is a good draw strategy. If everything else is equal, choose the non-CWD area over the CWD area. Hunters aren't going to solve CWD by using all their tags on CWD positive cervids.

 

[jspradley]

If the animal has CWD it's going to die a horrible death, even if you don't eat it if its positive you are doing it a favor.

 

[KoolBreeze]

Absolutely moral and ethical as far as I'm concerned. Although I do enjoy venison, I don't hunt to eat or to feed my family. I hunt because I enjoy being in the outdoors, plus it is a release, a way to get away from the day to day fast paced life. I let way more deer walk than I shoot. Some of the ones I shoot I keep, others I give away to other people that would like the meat. But I wouldn't give it a second thought to toss a deer that tested positive for CWD. No way I'm knowingly consuming it.

 

[tmead]

Is it ethical to apply for and hunt an area known to have CWD infected animals if you are not willing to eat a CWD positive animal ? My personal opinion is that it is not ethical to hunt an otherwise edible animal when you have every intention to waste it when there is no proven danger of transmission.

First, you don’t know it has CWD until it’s tested. Second it’s a fatal disease to the infected animal. Thirds killing it keeps it from further spreading the disease. I see nothing unethical about it.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[rayporter]

i have pondered that question a few times as i hunt in a cwd area. last month we took a pack trip and i killed a doe that we ate on for 4 days.

if it were tested and positive i have decided i would not eat it. but, a big but, even though they have places to drop off the heads for testing the test takes a while. not days either. by that time it will be processed [or trashed]. so if processed it would need to be marked or kept separate from all other game.

if you really wont eat it without testing, you should avoid putting yourself in that situation.

 

[tmead]

so if processed it would need to be marked or kept separate from all other game.
.

It’s always been common practice with anyone I know to mark packages when processing game. Nothing out of the ordinary for me.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dirt Wagon]

Worst case scenario you take a CWD positive deer out of the ecosystem and help to prevent its spread. If you are the type of person who would shoot it, not test it, and use it for coyote bait in a non-CWD area, then yes, there is a huge ethics violation issue.

I read a full study on CWD & the prions that feed on the animals brain is actually still alive and spreadable even after the animal died.

Test have also shown that the plants that are in contact with the animals waste, blood or feces, bring up the prions through their stalks/leaves & will infect any animals that eat it. Same goes for the coyotes or what ever eats them. Even if we eat it we become a carrier but since it can't feed off us it just uses us as a passing host or lies dormant(20-30 years at least) till it mutates to the point that it can feed off us.

Would have the same effect I believe as Kuru, also called the laughing death since people had no control of the emotions. But that is mostly caused from cannibalism through the eating of other peoples infected brain tissue. But since it's a New Guinea problem it shouldn't affect anyone's diet of human brains in this region.

 

[alexanderg23]

It wouldn’t bother me any. My land is in a high CWD zone. If they test positive, we just discard them. They needed to be removed anyway.

 

[brsnow]

I believe PETA agreed with the OP.

 

[Rich M]

I read a full study on CWD & the prions that feed on the animals brain is actually still alive and spreadable even after the animal died.

Test have also shown that the plants that are in contact with the animals waste, blood or feces, bring up the prions through their stalks/leaves & will infect any animals that eat it. Same goes for the coyotes or what ever eats them. Even if we eat it we become a carrier but since it can't feed off us it just uses us as a passing host or lies dormant(20-30 years at least) till it mutates to the point that it can feed off us.

Would have the same effect I believe as Kuru, also called the laughing death since people had no control of the emotions. But that is mostly caused from cannibalism through the eating of other peoples infected brain tissue. But since it's a New Guinea problem it shouldn't affect anyone's diet of human brains in this region.

I learned something if the dormancy period thing is accurate.

Asbestos has a 30 yr latency period as well. That's why it was such a big deal to get it out of the schools. Don't need a bunch of 30-40 yr Olds with asbestos related cancers. Oh, it only takes 1 exposure for some folks to get cancer from asbestos.

Is this similar to Cwd? I dunno. Folks take too many risks.

 

[S.Clancy]

Is it ethical to apply for and hunt an area known to have CWD infected animals if you are not willing to eat a CWD positive animal ? My personal opinion is that it is not ethical to hunt an otherwise edible animal when you have every intention to waste it when there is no proven danger of transmission.

Even in the worst hit areas of the country, you'd have a ~80% chance of it not having CWD. Most areas it is >95% chance. I'd still be going.

 

[spike camp]

Even in the worst hit areas of the country, you'd have a ~80% chance of it not having CWD. Most areas it is >95% chance. I'd still be going.

I hunt my neighbors 35 acres here in the front range foothills of Colorado.
High prevalence area for CWD.
We killed 4 bucks on this 35 acres in the last two years.
3 of the bucks tested positive for CWD.

 

[S.Clancy]

I hunt my neighbors 35 acres here in the front range foothills of Colorado.
High prevalence area for CWD.
We killed 4 bucks on this 35 acres in the last two years.
3 of the bucks tested positive for CWD.

I believe this is a case where the exception doesn't prove the rule. Your experience is likely the exception.

 

[spike camp]

I believe this is a case where the exception doesn't prove the rule. Your experience is likely the exception.

That reads nicely in text, but reality seems quite different.

Here, it’s to the point that we don’t even want to kill older bucks. We absolutely expected this last buck to test positive, and it did.
When you can anticipate positive results...your above percentages don’t add up; exception or not.

Ironic that this thread came up, as we had to discard of the positive bucks meat last week as well as my buck that came back negative, because we butchered both deer at once.
Huge mistake on our part.