noharleyyet
Well-known member
Don't head butt em either...; )
The "CWD is a HOAX" movement is building
- Thread starter brocksw
- Start date
D
Deleted member 28227
Guest
1. I've seen deer that seemed symptomatic on my in-laws, we shot it during season... it tested positive... but N=1
2. Absolutely.
brocksw
Well-known member
Do you hold the opinion that the state fish and game agencies are implicit in a larger conspiracy surrounding CWD, to purposely and maliciously impact hunting?
Bureaucrats are procedure followers, not analysts or critical thinkers. They obey their supervisors and everything they do is a matter of policy, judgement calls are discouraged. As for the heads of these agencies, I think most of them are anti-gun and anti-hunting, just trying to make hunting more complicated than it has to be with regulations that don't make sense at all. Yes, they have agendas of their own. Making a big deal of CWD is consistent with that agenda, so I am skeptical of it.
brocksw
Well-known member
Ok, let's use a different example. Here in North Dakota, at our Game and Fish, where nearly all of the decision makers for CWD issues are hunters and biologists edit:who work at the agency.
If they're implementing testing for CWD, allocating funds to CWD, implementing baiting restriction where CWD pops up, using known CWD data to play a role in decision making. What would be in it for them to make hunting "more complicated", and what "anti hunting" agenda would benefit them?
Last edited:
The only states Game agencies have dealt with were Texas and Montana, and a little in Missouri and Idaho. I know nothing of how North Dakota operates. But if hunters and biologists make those decisions, I wonder who decides which hunters and biologists make them.
I have found that often if your opinion doesn't support the official narrative, you don't have a right to your opinion.
brocksw
Well-known member
I forgot to add that the "hunters and biologists" all work at the agency. They are the decision makers. They are biologists in their career, but hunters and anglers just like the rest of us in their free time.
If they are the ones developing and implementing, these on the ground state cwd management policies, what is in it for them to make hunting "more complicated", and what "anti hunting" agenda would benefit them? The same biologists and in-house experts would be hurting their own personal level interest in hunting.
Last edited:
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
OK, to summarize . . .
All the science is unbelievable biased junk, no hunters are involved in the decisions, but if hunters are involved then you are suspect of "which hunters".
My tldr for your positions is that if you personally don't agree it is wrong, biased, political, and incompetent. Got it.
BirdManMike
Well-known member
Your gif has me hankering for to re-read some fantasy novels...
If they work for the agency, their bosses are the decision makers.
You're putting words in my mouth to further your agenda of promoting CWD fear, which is an anti-hunter agenda.
brocksw
Well-known member
The agency heads and agency chiefs are also hunters in their free time. Local, small town North Dakotans as well. Many with farming and ranching backgrounds.
I ask again, how would a conspiratorial anti-hunting agenda benefit them?
Irrelevant
Well-known member
It is quite ironic that you picked this as an example, because you can actually go and witness this on a human timescale.
Make a trip, then go back in 20 years, you will be able to see a difference.
You can even see the difference on Google Earth.
2005
2012
2020
The issue is not glaciers, it's whether global warming is real. I'm pushing 70 and I know lots of people who live on coasts and they tell me sea levels have not changed.It is quite ironic that you picked this as an example, because you can actually go and witness this on a human timescale.
Make a trip, then go back in 20 years, you will be able to see a difference.
View attachment 249629
View attachment 249630
You can even see the difference on Google Earth.
2005
View attachment 249631
2012
View attachment 249632
2020
View attachment 249633
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
More surreptitious, veiled accusations seeming to point at some conspiracy that only a special few are privileged enough to know about. Wink, wink, nod, nod.
You absolutely have a right to your opinion. But when you can’t produce any concrete, empirical, verifiable facts to support it you shouldn’t be surprised that people dismiss you. You don’t get to make stuff up and then pretend to be a victim when people call you on it.
It’s most certainly ok to question science- that’s the entire foundation of the scientific method. It’s also ok to question conspiracy theories that seem far fetched and ask for proof. If you’ve got some evidence, by all means, present it. You can’t get upset if people don’t just take some rando’s word for it on a hunting forum.
Because everyone who has social position knows that going against the will of the media is political suicide.
The fact that sea levels have remained unchanged is empirical. One does not need to have "proof" to distrust those who lie to him and have ulterior motives.
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
I have zero CWD agenda - I only engaged in this thread because of the silly anti-science/denier angle that I reject anytime it pops up on any topic.
My grandfather was a hunter, my father was a hunter, I am a hunter and my son is a hunter (and if I am so blessed in the future I will take my grandchildren hunting) so it is comical to be labeled "anti-hunter".
Plus, trying to keep hunters from dying of a CWD-type disease and trying to save the clean herds we have left hardly seems anti-hunting -- they are very pro-hunting in my book.
Hunting Wife
Well-known member
Ask Floridians, and Italians, and Micronesians about sea level rise.
However, this is a CWD thread, and you are leveling accusations at the agencies. So, proof?
VikingsGuy
Well-known member
You are the one who raised glaciers in the first place. Just like you said no hunters are involved in CDW discussions/decisions. But in both cases when shown evidence to the contrary you re-wrote your supposed concern. Anyone who bases their understanding of complex scientific systems on anecdotal personal observations is just not to be taken seriously.
Similar threads
