Deer farming

[ridgecommander]

Thought I would start a new thread on this issue as it seems that there is some discussion about whether deer farming should even exist.

The farming of fish, fowl and game is a long standing practice that is gaining popularity as consumer demand rises and our natural resources decrease. Some examples would be bison, elk, deer, pheasant, quail, ducks, geese, oysters, salmon, tilapia, catfish, swai, geoduck, shrimp etc...... The list could go on and on,

It would seem to me that any discussion about the negatives of deer farming should also include the farming of all animal species where there is potential of disease spreading to wild populations. I see that as missing from this discussion.

My question for discussion is deer farming unique? Should all farming of wildlife be under the same scrutiny? Are we at a point where the farming of wildlife is a necessity to save our wild populations? Is the risk worth the return? Would sportsmen support the elimination of all wildlife farming and the results that may occur?

All serious questions that need to be looked at as the practice of farming deer comes under this recent scrutiny.

Enlighten me.

[Deleted]

I had mentioned the whole deer farming vs. pheasant / trout stocking programs that we like (mostly?).

For me, I think it shakes out to if whether or not appropriate regulating bodies have oversight, knowledge, and manpower to follow up with problems. The PGC "grows" pheasants it releases. The PFBC does the same with it's trout. The PGC should be in charge of deer, if it is to continue. If we had wild cows, the PGC should be in charge of them too.

And to be honest, until this came out, I had NO idea deer farming was a big as it is. The fact that the Deer Farmer's Association has had a CWD policy on it's website, and no further updates to this latest incident, doesn't sit right with me.

[dennyf]

I have no real problem with deer and elk farming.

The problem is with what appears to be a lack of oversight on the part of the agency that the deer and elk farmers themselves demanded to take control of, from PGC.

A situation which is now made more critical, since CWD is here.

Some predicted there would be problems with AG overseeing cervid farming and apparently they had good reason to be concerned?

[ridgecommander]

Oct 24, 2012 11:36:30 GMT -5 @cl3 said:

I had mentioned the whole deer farming vs. pheasant / trout stocking programs that we like (mostly?).

.

Yep. Lots of examples out there of the wildlife farming beyond deer. As I said before, with diminishing resources and increasing demands, are the benefits worth the risks.

Much like the initial talk of feeding deer and banning it, now I am hearing and seeing buzz about the negatives of deer farming. Deer farming and most farming of wildlife is done for varying purposes from food to shows to byproducts. Deer are no different with livelyhoods and our resources at stake.

Learning from mistakes that were made and not rushing to pass judgement on cause and effect that has the potential to impact us more than the deer.

[Dutch]

Here is the problem, as I see it. All these other species that are farmed get diseases that run their course. The avian flu here in Lancaster County back in the 80's, they killed off millions of chickens, buried them on the farms, disinfected the chicken house, repopulated, and darned few ever got avian flu again.

You bury deer on a farm, and guess what, the CWD is ALWAYS there. It doesn't run it's course nor go away. It stays.

Now, most deer farmers have small herds. They need to introduce new genetics into those herds or they end up with problems caused by the lack of genetic diversity. We see such problems with a lack of genetic diversity in our Amish population here in Lancaster County.

So, in order for deer farmers to get diversity, they have to buy, sell, and trade some of their deer for deer from other herds. Friends of mine raise alpacas, they do the same.

So, we say, then stop moving deer, just move semenr from place to place to get diversity. Doesn't work with this disease. CWD comes in the semen.......................

My nephew's father in law farms red deer. Some go to shooting preserves, some go for meat. Heck, if I want to, I can go pick one out, he'll take it to the butcher and have it butchered for me, OR, I can shoot it right there and take it along with me.

The antler trade/shooting trade, goes hand in hand with the meat trade. It's inseparable.

So, unless we get rid of ALL deer farming operations, we will have the risk of CWD popping up, as it did.

If we want to do that, then the state will need to pay for those deer herds, depopulate them and make deer farming illegal in this state.

[TusseyMtman]

Deer are grown for food? Not around here. Around here, they are grown for large racks and then shot inside fences. The shooter very rarely takes the meat. In fact, he usually does not even touch the deer, except for the pictures.
Not quite as important to the national food supply as the aquaculture you mentioned. But, nice try putting them all in the same category.

[ridgecommander]

Oct 24, 2012 19:52:49 GMT -5 Dutch said:

The antler trade/shooting trade, goes hand in hand with the meat trade. It's inseparable.

So, unless we get rid of ALL deer farming operations, we will have the risk of CWD popping up, as it did.

If we want to do that, then the state will need to pay for those deer herds, depopulate them and make deer farming illegal in this state.

And once the ball is rolling where will it stop? The farming of wildlife has the potential to not only spread known disease but what about diseases that are unknown or will surely appear down the road.

There are many folks that wish to see the farming of all wildlife stop. Many of those same folks are not friendly to us or our sport. Not to mention the food and byproducts that many people rely on for not only income but sustenance.

I don't see much difference from farming for antlers, meat, fur, shell, pearls etc....

I hope the deer farmers and other like minded entrepreneurs don't bear the weight of this just as hunters and the hunting industry will with a ban on the feeding of deer.

[Dutch]

Every "livestock" operation produces excess animals it does not need. In the case of deer, it's does and small bucks. They have to go somewhere, so, they are sold for food.

Those big city restaurants sell vension, and where does it come from? A deer farm.

When my daughter was in London for a semester, she bought vension at an outdoor market.

[Dutch]

Ok Ridge, which industry is bigger? Deer hunting or deer farming? Why should one suffer due to the protection of another? And in the end, BOTH end up going down the toilet.

[ridgecommander]

Oct 24, 2012 20:13:49 GMT -5 TusseyMtman said:

Deer are grown for food? Not around here.

There is a market for farm raised deer, bison, elk that is stocked in upscale grocery chains and served at dining establishments that serve game. My local grocer carries all three.

Not quite as important to the national food supply as the aquaculture you mentioned.

I would agree but it is farming of wildlife no less. All have the same potentials

But, nice try putting them all in the same category.

Wasn't trying anything if you are referring to me. Just pointing out that the farming of wildlife is more than deer and antlers. And that singling out deer is shortsighted, IMO, and that may not be in the best interest of all of us for many reasons moving forward.

[ridgecommander]

Oct 24, 2012 20:31:37 GMT -5 Dutch said:

Ok Ridge, which industry is bigger? Deer hunting or deer farming? Why should one suffer due to the protection of another? And in the end, BOTH end up going down the toilet.

Deer hunting is bigger. I am not sure either has to suffer because of the other knowing what we know from other CWD areas. Both going down the toilet would stink for sure. If we get to a point where we know what will happen that is a bridge that must be crossed. That bridge will have far reaching consequences though that reach beyond hunting.

[Dutch]

Right now, those in York County that hunt, do not know the fate of their hunting. York has generally been pretty over populated with deer.

They gonna de populate the York County herd to slow the spread? What method?

See where I'm going?

They still hunt and kill deer in Wisconsin tho.

I'm still not worried much about CWD

[ridgecommander]

Oct 24, 2012 20:42:51 GMT -5 Dutch said:

They gonna de populate the York County herd to slow the spread? What method?

I hope not. That method hasn't worked to well.

[dennyf]

WI is still in turmoil over their approach, which initially was to bring deer number down as rapidly as possible, in hopes of slowing the spread of CWD.

Other than the negative impact on hunting opportunities, some are still arguing over how to slow the spread, or if the WI approach was the way to go?

But there is probably some merit to that idea of "rapid reduction"?

Stands to reason that if CWD is present, then the higher the deer numbers in a CWD area, the higher the probability that the disease will spread more quickly where larger numbers of deer make it more likely they will have greater incidences of interaction?

On the face of it, an area with say 20 deer per square mile, should have far less liklihood of those deer "bumping into each other", compared to an area the same size with 40 deer per sq. mile?

I would thing the single biggest factor in farmed deer spreading any disease, is that they are shipped about the state and the country? Wild deer cannot travel from PA to Indiana on their own, as an example of that risk. Nor can they go from York Co. to Erie Co.

[ridgecommander]

Oct 25, 2012 7:41:37 GMT -5 dennyf said:

WI is still in turmoil over their approach, which initially was to bring deer number down as rapidly as possible, in hopes of slowing the spread of CWD.

Yep. Not sure this approach has accomplished anything other than animosity.

Stands to reason that if CWD is present, then the higher the deer numbers in a CWD area, the higher the probability that the disease will spread more quickly where larger numbers of deer make it more likely they will have greater incidences of interaction?

On the face of it, an area with say 20 deer per square mile, should have far less liklihood of those deer "bumping into each other", compared to an area the same size with 40 deer per sq. mile?

IMO, this seems the logical approach. Keep deer numbers at healthy levels. Not to eradicate them or allow their numbers to balloon. Parallels our current DMP as it sits now.

I would thing the single biggest factor in farmed deer spreading any disease, is that they are shipped about the state and the country? Wild deer cannot travel from PA to Indiana on their own, as an example of that risk. Nor can they go from York Co. to Erie Co.

This relates to my earlier points of the standard practice of the farming of wildlife for various reasons and the frequent shipping of products of or the live animals across state lines. CWD is a known disease effecting cervids. Obviously, the scrutiny is justified. But, with time, there is a strong possibility that the farming of wildlife will result in other diseases and the chance of transitioning to a wild herd, flock, gaggle or school is high.

This is much deeper than just deer and there are serious questions that need addressed as we move forward. Are the benfits worth the risks with increasing human populations and decreasing natural resources.

As with the current war on baiting, I hate to see a war on deer farming that is driven by fear and panic when hunters will be targeted, farmers livelyhoods in jeopardy and industrys are at stake that are friendly to hunters.

Really my thoughts are just a topic of dicsussion as this is a very complex and dynamic situation.

It will be interesting to see if hunters stay away from the CWD zone becuase of misinformation about the disease itslef or the extra burdens that have to be taken on harvested deer. If that does happen to a certain extent, deer in those areas will begin to overpopulate which is not a good thing given the present issue.

[dennyf]

Right now the biggest problem, other than the potential spread of CWD into wild deer, is the lack of communication on the situation.

I passed out PGC's new CWD pamphlets to a crowd of about 40 people last Monday night, at our club's weekly block shoot. Only a handful in the crowd had even heard about CWD in New Oxford. Many of them hunt in York and Adams counties, some even live in York County. All were eager to become informed.

PGC is being very proactice in getting the word out and working on various means of containment and testing.

While AG still refuses to even disclose the simplest bits of info, such as a potentially-infected captive deer escaping into the wild over a week ago.

Obviously PGC is working to protect our hunting heritage by informing hunters about the situation and acting to contain CWD in an area now known to have been exposed to it.

At this point, one has to wonder who or what AG is trying to protect?

[Deleted]

Oct 26, 2012 7:21:45 GMT -5 dennyf said:

At this point, one has to wonder who or what AG is trying to protect?

This is where I keep getting stuck... that and the fact that the PDFA has a CWD penalty policy for it's members. Have we been sitting on CWD for years already?

It seems like AG is just "consulting it's lawyers," which is why the radio silence. Radio silence is never a good thing.

[Dutch]

At this point, one has to wonder who or what AG is trying to protect?

Ag falls under the Executive branch of government. The Governor controls it. There is where your problem originates........

You are pissin' in the wind trying to get Ag to do anything, they obviously have a dictated to them agenda.

[galthatfishes]

Thats why being transparent in these issues is always a good idea. The lack of transparency gives the appearace that things are "much bigger" than they are, creating more problems down the road.

[Dutch]

Well, it needs to go to the Gov then

[galthatfishes]

You may well be right.

[Dutch]

Scott Walker got involved, and not in a good way, but we, the 900,000 hunters in this state of 13 million people, may need to press the issue as to why nothing is being done?

Of course, you and I know how DEP was instructed on issuing permits for public works projects to speed employment, at the expense of the environment...... don't we?

[galthatfishes]

We do.

[TusseyMtman]

Oct 26, 2012 6:46:04 GMT -5 ridgecommander said:

Oct 25, 2012 7:41:37 GMT -5 dennyf said:

WI is still in turmoil over their approach, which initially was to bring deer number down as rapidly as possible, in hopes of slowing the spread of CWD.

Yep. Not sure this approach has accomplished anything other than animosity.




IMO, this seems the logical approach. Keep deer numbers at healthy levels. Not to eradicate them or allow their numbers to balloon. Parallels our current DMP as it sits now.

I would thing the single biggest factor in farmed deer spreading any disease, is that they are shipped about the state and the country? Wild deer cannot travel from PA to Indiana on their own, as an example of that risk. Nor can they go from York Co. to Erie Co.

This relates to my earlier points of the standard practice of the farming of wildlife for various reasons and the frequent shipping of products of or the live animals across state lines. CWD is a known disease effecting cervids. Obviously, the scrutiny is justified. But, with time, there is a strong possibility that the farming of wildlife will result in other diseases and the chance of transitioning to a wild herd, flock, gaggle or school is high.

This is much deeper than just deer and there are serious questions that need addressed as we move forward. Are the benfits worth the risks with increasing human populations and decreasing natural resources.

As with the current war on baiting, I hate to see a war on deer farming that is driven by fear and panic when hunters will be targeted, farmers livelyhoods in jeopardy and industrys are at stake that are friendly to hunters.

Really my thoughts are just a topic of dicsussion as this is a very complex and dynamic situation.

It will be interesting to see if hunters stay away from the CWD zone becuase of misinformation about the disease itslef or the extra burdens that have to be taken on harvested deer. If that does happen to a certain extent, deer in those areas will begin to overpopulate which is not a good thing given the present issue.

I'm sure there is a small market for the meat. Of all the meat protein consumed in this country, store bought venison is a tiny, tiny invisible drop in the bucket. The argument that the USA needs deer farming to feed the population does not hold water. Even Dutch basically called the meat a By-product of the real purpose of the industry: trophy deer that are larger and easier to harvest than wild ones!

[Dutch]

The US population does NOT need farmed deer for food. Correct.

There are many things the US population does not need, but simply desires.

If someone in a restaurant desires venison, and it's a legal business, venison will be sold. It's simple supply and demand and capitalism.