Study: Hunters Die After Consuming CWD-Infected Venison

[WildWill]

Life is a series of managed risks. Am I going to base my meal choice on a statistical improbability?

I'm right there with you on hating the idea of wasting meat. I decided long ago after doing my own research that I'm not throwing any deer out. I will continue to practice what I was tought growing up if the deer appears healthy in life and everything looks good when cutting it up it's getting eaten.

Your above thought really sums it up for me. If I had to throw my deer out I'd take up bird hunting or maybe golf. OK well not golf but you get it. Pretty sure my family being the epicenter of cwd transfer from eating a couple positive deer is about as likely as a astroid landing on our house while we all sleep.

 

[thomas89]

Holding those positive results in your hand is a lot different than “maybe it’s positive”.

Zero shame in tossing it. There have been enough jumps of TSEs to humans to give me pause.

Would you grind up an abscess in a deer you find or cut well around it and toss it? Probably wouldn’t get sick from eating it all. Probably. Same with hair, blood shot meat, gristle, etc.

I grew up in Wisconsin in the early 2000s when the “eradication” plan went into effect. I don’t think there is anything like that going on anywhere in the country with public land deer/elk herds today. I’d say other than a few spots with mandatory testing for CWD and some transportation guidelines, it’s pretty lax.

It’s not a mandate to throw your deer out. It’s an option. I’m sure a person would be thinking long and hard about it if it was mandatory to throw your deer away.

If I was really on the fence, I’d get the address to someone who is all about eating infected meat and drop off the deer there.

 

[BrentD]

So, if he decides to not eat it, how many of you are willing to take it from him? I would find that a difficult decision.

 

[Irrelevant]

The decision to not have knowingly positive CWD meat in my house is not about me, but for the other folks in my family that may eat it.

Do you feed them high fructose corn syrup? What about lettuce, spinach, eggs, milk? Those are all things that can make them sick or kill them. We have recalls on them every few years.

I'm not necessarily trying to shame anyone but press for consistent review.

 

[Irrelevant]

So, if he decides to not eat it, how many of you are willing to take it from him? I would find that a difficult decision.

Right? If someone offered me a CWD positive deer my first response is no. But if they offered me some beef I probably say yes. Despite the fact that there is a measurable risk in it of getting a handful of food born illnesses from it.

 

[jt13]

Do you feed them high fructose corn syrup? What about lettuce, spinach, eggs, milk? Those are all things that can make them sick or kill them. We have recalls on them every few years.

I'm not necessarily trying to shame anyone but press for consistent review.

You can strawman argument yourself to death. What's next? "Do you drive in a car?" "Don't you know that's way more dangerous than CWD?!"

We avoid ingesting spoiled milk/eggs as well as other knowingly contaminated food products. If the carton the eggs came from had a warning sticker on the package that said "this bird tested positive for a fatal degenerative neurological brain disease and those contaminates are also in the eggs, but they'll probably be fine to feed to your toddler." I'd probably skip over to a carton that didn't come from a sick animal, just in case.

 

[FI460]

Do you feed them high fructose corn syrup? What about lettuce, spinach, eggs, milk? Those are all things that can make them sick or kill them. We have recalls on them every few years.

I'm not necessarily trying to shame anyone but press for consistent review.

There is a fairly simple treatment for salmonella or listeria. That's part of the story with cwd. Nothing to be done, and it's always more spooky when it impacts your brain.

 

[Wild Bill]

We avoid ingesting spoiled milk/eggs as well as other knowingly contaminated food products.

Not advocating for it or against it, but it sounds like the solution there is maybe electing to not submit the animal for testing for CWD.

 

[TOGIE]

don't tell people where I'm going when I go hiking/hunting

bruh...

 

[COEngineer]

I submit samples as required for the game agencies to track it, but I don't consider it a human risk and I don't look up the results. Happy as a clam here.

 

[Irrelevant]

You can strawman argument yourself to death. What's next? "Do you drive in a car?" "Don't you know that's way more dangerous than CWD?!"

We avoid ingesting spoiled milk/eggs as well as other knowingly contaminated food products. If the carton the eggs came from had a warning sticker on the package that said "this bird tested positive for a fatal degenerative neurological brain disease and those contaminates are also in the eggs, but they'll probably be fine to feed to your toddler." I'd probably skip over to a carton that didn't come from a sick animal, just in case.

Is it a strawman argument? I believe we're talking about risk evaluation, specifically food-borne. Again, I'm not necessarily trying to be a dick, though I'm sure I'm coming across as one, but 3,000 people died last year due to food-borne illness. That's 3,000 more than we know CWD killed.

Having been sick with food poisoning before, it sure would be a terrible way to die. It is treatable? Yeah for ~47.8 million of us, all but those poor 3,000.

I live on a former orchard, prior to DDT, they used a lead-arensate-based pesticide. Because metals are highly resistant to degradation, our topsoil is still contaminated a levels about 3x of what the State of WA tells me is safe. Arsenic is a KNOWN carcinogen. But I still chose to buy it, build a house, and grow a garden there. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the risks, for now, if my kids get some weird cancer, I'm sure I'll regret it, but taking on zero risk, not growing strawberries and tomatoes, just doesn't seem like the appropriate decision either.

 

[jt13]

Is it a strawman argument? I believe we're talking about risk evaluation, specifically food-borne. Again, I'm not necessarily trying to be a dick, though I'm sure I'm coming across as one, but 3,000 people died last year due to food-borne illness. That's 3,000 more than we know CWD killed.
View attachment 346825
Having been sick with food poisoning before, it sure would be a terrible way to die. It is treatable? Yeah for ~47.8 million of us, all but those poor 3,000.

I live on a former orchard, prior to DDT, they used a lead-arensate-based pesticide. Because metals are highly resistant to degradation, our topsoil is still contaminated a levels about 3x of what the State of WA tells me is safe. Arsenic is a KNOWN carcinogen. But I still chose to buy it, build a house, and grow a garden there. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the risks, for now, if my kids get some weird cancer, I'm sure I'll regret it, but taking on zero risk, not growing strawberries and tomatoes, just doesn't seem like the appropriate decision either.

Cool man, you do you.

I'm going to continue to not feed knowingly diseased animals to my family.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

I've had a deer test positive. Tossed it without a second thought. Better than thinking about it every bite you take.

 

[Irrelevant]

I've had a deer test positive. Tossed it without a second thought. Better than thinking about it every bite you take.

Certain have plenty of those same thoughts.

 

[GrantK]

Is it a strawman argument? I believe we're talking about risk evaluation, specifically food-borne. Again, I'm not necessarily trying to be a dick, though I'm sure I'm coming across as one, but 3,000 people died last year due to food-borne illness. That's 3,000 more than we know CWD killed.
View attachment 346825
Having been sick with food poisoning before, it sure would be a terrible way to die. It is treatable? Yeah for ~47.8 million of us, all but those poor 3,000.

I live on a former orchard, prior to DDT, they used a lead-arensate-based pesticide. Because metals are highly resistant to degradation, our topsoil is still contaminated a levels about 3x of what the State of WA tells me is safe. Arsenic is a KNOWN carcinogen. But I still chose to buy it, build a house, and grow a garden there. Why? Because the benefits outweigh the risks, for now, if my kids get some weird cancer, I'm sure I'll regret it, but taking on zero risk, not growing strawberries and tomatoes, just doesn't seem like the appropriate decision either.

Stats are great, but the devil gets buried in the details- look at climbing, statistically, I'm more likely to die driving to the mountain than climbing it, but stats hide things like time of exposure and exactly what kind of climbing I'm doing, every serious alpinist who has been in the game for a while has (usually many) friends who have died climbing, and virtually none who have died in auto accidents, a statistically much more dangerous thing. I'd view knowingly eating CWD positive game in the realm of alpine climbing, It is statistically safe up until it isn't, if you know you're rolling the dice and accept the increased risk then carry on, but with the knowledge that even a tiny chance of a bad outcome is an eventual certainty if you roll the dice enough times, although perhaps in this case that number doesn't exist, or is so high as to be unreachable...

I personally tend to agree that the chance of a bad issue with eating CWD-positive meat is so minuscule as to be nonexistent, but I'd skip eating it if I knew for sure it was infected, on the principle of not knowingly rolling the dice more than I have to.

 

[WIbiggame]

I ask this question sort of rhetorically, but also to point out what is coming your way out west as you aren't doing or dealing with anything new.

As a NR I spend either $707 or $1965 on an elk tag. I shoot an elk and get it tested; It's positive so I pitch the meat. Am I entitled to another replacement tag as I didn't get anything for the money spent?

And at what point is the positive rate so high we are all just "trophy hunters" bc all we will get to keep is the antlers or ivories?

 

[appaloosa]

Last year I offered to give a fully processed deer that tested positive for CWD to any HuntTalker willing to take it. Not a single person responded to my offer.
It went in the garbage and I didn't think twice about it. My kids won't be eating CWD infected meat, as long as they are under my care.

 

[44hunter45]

I ask this question sort of rhetorically, but also to point out what is coming your way out west as you aren't doing or dealing with anything new.

As a NR I spend either $707 or $1965 on an elk tag. I shoot an elk and get it tested; It's positive so I pitch the meat. Am I entitled to another replacement tag as I didn't get anything for the money spent?

And at what point is the positive rate so high we are all just "trophy hunters" bc all we will get to keep is the antlers or ivories?

This is a good question. Years ago I killed a mule deer doe in Idaho that had parasites. IDFG assured me this was a common condition and the meat was safe for human consumption. They then offered to take the meat and issue me a new tag (for the same season).

It tasted yummy.

I can't speak for Wyoming, but I would sure ask them.

We really need a real time test for prions. It does you no good to get a replacement tag after you traveled home and are out of PTO. If you had an animal test positive real-time on day two of your trip, a replacement tag would possibly work.

Regarding your second question. If there were no reasonable chance I could eat the animal I shot, I would not hunt.

If I were head of a state game agency (that would be a perfect world for about a month), I would give you replacement tag. You would have to give me the antlers and ivories from your first kill to get it. Your choice whether you want the "trophies" or the chance to harvest a clean animal.

BTW - I have a substantial ivory collection. More than half are from dead elk I've found in the field.

 

[Irrelevant]

Stats are great, but the devil gets buried in the details- look at climbing, statistically, I'm more likely to die driving to the mountain than climbing it, but stats hide things like time of exposure and exactly what kind of climbing I'm doing, every serious alpinist who has been in the game for a while has (usually many) friends who have died climbing, and virtually none who have died in auto accidents, a statistically much more dangerous thing. I'd view knowingly eating CWD positive game in the realm of alpine climbing, It is statistically safe up until it isn't, if you know you're rolling the dice and accept the increased risk then carry on, but with the knowledge that even a tiny chance of a bad outcome is an eventual certainty if you roll the dice enough times, although perhaps in this case that number doesn't exist, or is so high as to be unreachable...

I personally tend to agree that the chance of a bad issue with eating CWD-positive meat is so minuscule as to be nonexistent, but I'd skip eating it if I knew for sure it was infected, on the principle of not knowingly rolling the dice more than I have to.

Yes, 87.6 % of statistics are made up, but as you pointed out, you know people who have died climbing. No one has ever died because of CWD (that we know of). There are no population-level health indicators that CDJ is occurring more frequently in CWD areas (like there is for large areas of contamination like arsenic with the Tacoma smelter plume, or lung cancer around Libby mt).

What I'm hearing is that most people feel like the risk is too small to worry about, but also wouldn't knowingly take the risk if they didn't need to. As @COEngineer pointed out, that really leads to people not testing, or testing and not reviewing the results. That seems like a logical copout.

...but as the "freak-in-the-sheets.xlsx" told me, prions are scary. I can't disagree with that either.

 

[Nick87]

freak-in-the-sheets.xlsx

The what?