Attention Nadefa Members!!
- Thread starter Bluff Country Whitetails
- Start date
Ok, I am a MWBHRA member and former board member, I have attended both of the meetings that have been held in front of the state represenatives, everyday I get new news from different sources. I have been raising whitetails for nearly 20 years, and my family depends on our deer for a living, I have 2 kids coming upon college age and a mortgage. With that being said, I have always supported NADEFA and do now, I know that in any politics you don't get your way--you have to give a little to get a little. Please Shawn, clarify NADEFAs stance on the CWD standards and what the standards include. Surely we, as an organization don't agree with 10 foot fencing and double fencing. It is time for all of the board members and office holders of NADEFA to clarify our position. What is happening in Mo. is sure to happen in other states. United we stand, divided we fall.
Here are some of the standards that ACA has issues with....Check em out and judge for yourself. They should scare the **** out of ya....
Optional Language- Pertaining to page 3 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The optional and guidance document language was intended to match the introductory sentences for both Part A and Part B but it has been removed for Part B on Version 22. Part B is the most restrictive and onerous of the entire document therefore it is imperative the there is consistency for Part A and Part B. Instead, the first sentence in Version 22 states these “describe minimum requirements.” This clearly contradicts the intent of the document.
Wild Cervid Movement Exemption. Pertaining to Part A-8.1 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. Version 22 exempts wildlife agencies from re-location/movement requirements of wild cervids from the same certification requirements forced on farmed cervids. The document states, “Wild cervids can move under the authority of APHIS as long as they come from a low risk herd.” If USDA is truly concerned about the public and animal health relating to CWD, then all movement should be subject to the same rules even though the wild cervids are not part of the herd certification plan. Farmed cervids that are not enrolled in herd certification programs are prohibited to move interstate. There must be parity in movement regulations.
5 Year Quarantines. Pertaining to Part B-Paragraph B, of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document states, all quarantines may require 5 years. This should be based on sound epidemiological evaluation of herd risk.
Semen. Pertaining to Part A-2.6 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document states, “At this time there is no scientific evidence that germplasm (embryos or semen) may transmit CWD.” Language concerning germplasm and semen needs to be eliminated until science proves otherwise. The document specifically states there is no scientific evidence to connect CWD with semen therefore it should not be included in the document.
100% Testing for all Harvested Cervids in Preserves. Pertaining to the definitions on page 6 under the heading of “Hunt or Shooter Facility” of the Version 22 Standards document draft. In the last sentence of the definition of “Hunt or Shooter Facility,” Version 22 features the suggested idea of 100% testing for all harvested cervids in preserves by
4985 West Blue Hill Rd, Ayr, Nebraska, 68925 | 402-756-3355 | www.americancervidalliance.org
stating “States also may have CWD testing requirements of all cervids harvested from these facilities.”
5 Year Trace Backs and Trace Forwards. Pertaining to Part A-2.8 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document defines “Trace Forwards” under the definitions on page 8 as, “Trace Forward Herd- A herd that has received exposed animals from a CWD positive herd within 5 years before the diagnosis of CWD in the positive herd or from the identified point of entry of CWD into the positive herd.” Therefore, if someone is considered a trace forward herd within 60 months, their herd status would be suspended according to the language on page 14, If a herd is designated a CWD suspect herd, a trace back herd, or a trace forward herd, it will immediately be placed in suspended status pending an epidemiological investigation by the State animal health agency. A herd may remain in suspended status until the epidemiological investigation ends and appropriate actions are taken.”
If the trace forward herd to found to be “commingled” with the exposed herd within 60 months, then the trace forward herd will be designated as an exposed herd too. This is according to page 15, “If the epidemiological investigation determines that the herd was commingled with a CWD positive animal, the herd loses its program status and is designated a CWD exposed herd.” If a herd loses its status the five years of monitoring is void and reverts back to zero. This should be based on a sound epidemiological evaluation of herd risk. This is very important a
10 Foot Fencing. Pertaining to Appendix II of Version 22 the Standards document draft. The document states, “in at least one study (VerCauteren, et.al 2010) recommends fence height greater than 2.4 meters (at least 10 feet) to ensure 100 percent containment.” However, 8 feet is the requirement in the standards and rule. Theories of surveys suggesting anything otherwise is speculation and inappropriate to be included in the document. The document already states in Part A-4 and the Rule 9 CFR 55.23 “For herds established after the effective date of the CWD rule, the fence must be a minimum of 2.4 meters (8 feet) high and must comply with any other existing State regulations or requirements. In either case, the fence must be structurally sound, maintained in good repair, and of sufficient construction to contain the animals.” This language goes far above the intent of the federal rule.
Definition of “Commingling” to allow AI Program to Lower Your Herd Status. Pertaining to Part B-2.4 item 6, under heading of “Limited Contact” of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document states on page 12, “Commingling includes contact with bodily fluids or excrement from other farmed animals. Farmed cervids commingled with other farmed cervids assume the status of the lowest program status animal in the group.” Semen is considered a “bodily fluid.” This could offer the possible interpretation that if “bodily fluids” enters your herd via artificial insemination it could lower your herds’ status to the level of the AI herd. This theory is justified by the document already stating the warning about germsplasm (semen) in Part A-2.6 of Version 22 Standards document draft.
Requiring Notification for Every State Traveled Through to Destination for Interstate Transport. Pertaining to Part A-8.4 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The
4985 West Blue Hill Rd, Ayr, Nebraska, 68925 | 402-756-3355 | www.americancervidalliance.org
federal rule, located in 9 CFR 81.5, allows interstate transit to destination. It is stated again in the standards by stating, “Cervids eligible to move interstate in accordance with the CWD rule, and meeting the conditions specified in Part 81.5, can transit States enroute to their destination.” However, the standards then go on to require notification for every state during transit by stating, “Although the CWD rule does not require such transport permits, APHIS intends to advise producers and transporters to provide prior notification to any state through which they may transit en-route to their final destination ” This additional language is unnecessary and should be removed. The federal rule does not require this therefore the standards go above the requirements.
Top Soil Removal Requirements. Pertaining to Appendix IV- Section B, under heading of “Dry lot Where CWD positive animals have been held in close confinement (this includes but is not limited to corrals, pens, stalls, and alleyways or pathways),” of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document states, “In addition, removal of the top 1 to 2 inches of soil may help to reduce surface contamination. The soil removed may be buried deeply or incinerated.” There is no instruction of what state or federal agency will be responsible for soil removal cost therefore it would fall on the producer. Moreover, the language “Dry lot Where CWD positive animals have been held in close confinement (this includes but is not limited to corrals, pens, stalls, and alleyways or pathways)” is very vague and could incorporate dozens to hundreds of acres requiring the removal depending on the speculation. This is highly inappropriate.
HCP with No State Participation. Pertaining to Part A-1 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. States without an HCP will only be allowed to participate in the program if funds are available. The document states, “subject to the availability of appropriated funds, in States that do not have an approved State CWD HCP.” There must be federal funds available if a state does not have an HCP or the producer will not be able to participate. Since this is a federal mandate, it is imperative the funding is provided.
Quarantine for Commingled Animals for Five Years. Pertaining to Part B of the Version 22 Standards document draft. For 5 years even if herds have been commingled for any length of time. This should be based sound epidemiological evaluation of herd risk. Standard requirements of 5 years are inappropriate.
Sale Barns. Pertaining to Part B under heading of “Limited Contact” of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document states, “Pens at fairs, livestock auctions, sales, shows, and exhibitions must be thoroughly cleaned and all organic material removed after use and before holding another animal.” This ensures sale barns involving cervids must have total disinfection if there is limited contact with susceptible species. This will severely damage states with live animal auctions involving deer or elk. For example, Lolli Bros in Missouri.
Definition of Hunt or Shooter Facility. Pertaining to the definitions on page 6 under the heading of “Hunt or Shooter Facility” of the Version 22 Standards document draft. Version 22 has now included the new definition of “Hunter or Shooter Facility” as “A privately owned ranch or other premises that operates to sell commercial hunts. These facilities should have fenced enclosures maintained to prevent ingress and egress of cervids. They may participate in an Approved State CWD HCP if they can comply with all minimum
4985 West Blue Hill Rd, Ayr, Nebraska, 68925 | 402-756-3355 | www.americancervidalliance.org
requirements of Approved State CWD HCP as set forth in the federal rule. States also may have CWD testing requirements of all cervids harvested from these facilities.” The word “Shooter” must be removed from the definition. The added language in the last sentence suggesting 100% testing is also inappropriate.
Optional Language- Pertaining to page 3 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The optional and guidance document language was intended to match the introductory sentences for both Part A and Part B but it has been removed for Part B on Version 22. Part B is the most restrictive and onerous of the entire document therefore it is imperative the there is consistency for Part A and Part B. Instead, the first sentence in Version 22 states these “describe minimum requirements.” This clearly contradicts the intent of the document.
Wild Cervid Movement Exemption. Pertaining to Part A-8.1 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. Version 22 exempts wildlife agencies from re-location/movement requirements of wild cervids from the same certification requirements forced on farmed cervids. The document states, “Wild cervids can move under the authority of APHIS as long as they come from a low risk herd.” If USDA is truly concerned about the public and animal health relating to CWD, then all movement should be subject to the same rules even though the wild cervids are not part of the herd certification plan. Farmed cervids that are not enrolled in herd certification programs are prohibited to move interstate. There must be parity in movement regulations.
5 Year Quarantines. Pertaining to Part B-Paragraph B, of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document states, all quarantines may require 5 years. This should be based on sound epidemiological evaluation of herd risk.
Semen. Pertaining to Part A-2.6 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document states, “At this time there is no scientific evidence that germplasm (embryos or semen) may transmit CWD.” Language concerning germplasm and semen needs to be eliminated until science proves otherwise. The document specifically states there is no scientific evidence to connect CWD with semen therefore it should not be included in the document.
100% Testing for all Harvested Cervids in Preserves. Pertaining to the definitions on page 6 under the heading of “Hunt or Shooter Facility” of the Version 22 Standards document draft. In the last sentence of the definition of “Hunt or Shooter Facility,” Version 22 features the suggested idea of 100% testing for all harvested cervids in preserves by
4985 West Blue Hill Rd, Ayr, Nebraska, 68925 | 402-756-3355 | www.americancervidalliance.org
stating “States also may have CWD testing requirements of all cervids harvested from these facilities.”
5 Year Trace Backs and Trace Forwards. Pertaining to Part A-2.8 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document defines “Trace Forwards” under the definitions on page 8 as, “Trace Forward Herd- A herd that has received exposed animals from a CWD positive herd within 5 years before the diagnosis of CWD in the positive herd or from the identified point of entry of CWD into the positive herd.” Therefore, if someone is considered a trace forward herd within 60 months, their herd status would be suspended according to the language on page 14, If a herd is designated a CWD suspect herd, a trace back herd, or a trace forward herd, it will immediately be placed in suspended status pending an epidemiological investigation by the State animal health agency. A herd may remain in suspended status until the epidemiological investigation ends and appropriate actions are taken.”
If the trace forward herd to found to be “commingled” with the exposed herd within 60 months, then the trace forward herd will be designated as an exposed herd too. This is according to page 15, “If the epidemiological investigation determines that the herd was commingled with a CWD positive animal, the herd loses its program status and is designated a CWD exposed herd.” If a herd loses its status the five years of monitoring is void and reverts back to zero. This should be based on a sound epidemiological evaluation of herd risk. This is very important a
10 Foot Fencing. Pertaining to Appendix II of Version 22 the Standards document draft. The document states, “in at least one study (VerCauteren, et.al 2010) recommends fence height greater than 2.4 meters (at least 10 feet) to ensure 100 percent containment.” However, 8 feet is the requirement in the standards and rule. Theories of surveys suggesting anything otherwise is speculation and inappropriate to be included in the document. The document already states in Part A-4 and the Rule 9 CFR 55.23 “For herds established after the effective date of the CWD rule, the fence must be a minimum of 2.4 meters (8 feet) high and must comply with any other existing State regulations or requirements. In either case, the fence must be structurally sound, maintained in good repair, and of sufficient construction to contain the animals.” This language goes far above the intent of the federal rule.
Definition of “Commingling” to allow AI Program to Lower Your Herd Status. Pertaining to Part B-2.4 item 6, under heading of “Limited Contact” of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document states on page 12, “Commingling includes contact with bodily fluids or excrement from other farmed animals. Farmed cervids commingled with other farmed cervids assume the status of the lowest program status animal in the group.” Semen is considered a “bodily fluid.” This could offer the possible interpretation that if “bodily fluids” enters your herd via artificial insemination it could lower your herds’ status to the level of the AI herd. This theory is justified by the document already stating the warning about germsplasm (semen) in Part A-2.6 of Version 22 Standards document draft.
Requiring Notification for Every State Traveled Through to Destination for Interstate Transport. Pertaining to Part A-8.4 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The
4985 West Blue Hill Rd, Ayr, Nebraska, 68925 | 402-756-3355 | www.americancervidalliance.org
federal rule, located in 9 CFR 81.5, allows interstate transit to destination. It is stated again in the standards by stating, “Cervids eligible to move interstate in accordance with the CWD rule, and meeting the conditions specified in Part 81.5, can transit States enroute to their destination.” However, the standards then go on to require notification for every state during transit by stating, “Although the CWD rule does not require such transport permits, APHIS intends to advise producers and transporters to provide prior notification to any state through which they may transit en-route to their final destination ” This additional language is unnecessary and should be removed. The federal rule does not require this therefore the standards go above the requirements.
Top Soil Removal Requirements. Pertaining to Appendix IV- Section B, under heading of “Dry lot Where CWD positive animals have been held in close confinement (this includes but is not limited to corrals, pens, stalls, and alleyways or pathways),” of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document states, “In addition, removal of the top 1 to 2 inches of soil may help to reduce surface contamination. The soil removed may be buried deeply or incinerated.” There is no instruction of what state or federal agency will be responsible for soil removal cost therefore it would fall on the producer. Moreover, the language “Dry lot Where CWD positive animals have been held in close confinement (this includes but is not limited to corrals, pens, stalls, and alleyways or pathways)” is very vague and could incorporate dozens to hundreds of acres requiring the removal depending on the speculation. This is highly inappropriate.
HCP with No State Participation. Pertaining to Part A-1 of the Version 22 Standards document draft. States without an HCP will only be allowed to participate in the program if funds are available. The document states, “subject to the availability of appropriated funds, in States that do not have an approved State CWD HCP.” There must be federal funds available if a state does not have an HCP or the producer will not be able to participate. Since this is a federal mandate, it is imperative the funding is provided.
Quarantine for Commingled Animals for Five Years. Pertaining to Part B of the Version 22 Standards document draft. For 5 years even if herds have been commingled for any length of time. This should be based sound epidemiological evaluation of herd risk. Standard requirements of 5 years are inappropriate.
Sale Barns. Pertaining to Part B under heading of “Limited Contact” of the Version 22 Standards document draft. The document states, “Pens at fairs, livestock auctions, sales, shows, and exhibitions must be thoroughly cleaned and all organic material removed after use and before holding another animal.” This ensures sale barns involving cervids must have total disinfection if there is limited contact with susceptible species. This will severely damage states with live animal auctions involving deer or elk. For example, Lolli Bros in Missouri.
Definition of Hunt or Shooter Facility. Pertaining to the definitions on page 6 under the heading of “Hunt or Shooter Facility” of the Version 22 Standards document draft. Version 22 has now included the new definition of “Hunter or Shooter Facility” as “A privately owned ranch or other premises that operates to sell commercial hunts. These facilities should have fenced enclosures maintained to prevent ingress and egress of cervids. They may participate in an Approved State CWD HCP if they can comply with all minimum
4985 West Blue Hill Rd, Ayr, Nebraska, 68925 | 402-756-3355 | www.americancervidalliance.org
requirements of Approved State CWD HCP as set forth in the federal rule. States also may have CWD testing requirements of all cervids harvested from these facilities.” The word “Shooter” must be removed from the definition. The added language in the last sentence suggesting 100% testing is also inappropriate.
Mike, I am not sure what your last post meant exactly, but I would like to see NADEFAs position posted on this forum for everyone to read.
Now Compare those standards to what the HSUS has on their website......
October 24, 2012
Chronic Wasting Disease
An emerging threat
Chronic wasting disease is a progressive, fatal disease threatening captive and wild populations of deer and elk in certain areas of the United States. There is concern that this disease may spread further and affect more deer, elk, and/or moose herds. As a result, CWD has important scientific and political implications.
What is chronic wasting disease?
Where did CWD originate and how is it transmitted?
Whom does CWD affect?
What can be done?
What is chronic wasting disease?
CWD is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy affecting deer and other cervids (animals belonging to the deer family). Abnormal proteins called prions attack the nervous system and brain of the infected animal. As CWD progresses, symptoms include reduced eating and weight loss, repetitive walking, possible blindness, excessive drinking, fine head tremors, loss of coordination, and increased salivating. The disease is fatal to infected animals.
Where did CWD originate and how is it transmitted?
CWD was first identified in captive mule deer in Colorado in the late 1960s. It was not observed in the wild until 1981. However, the origin and cause of the disease have never been definitively determined. Most wildlife scientists agree that CWD proliferated in captive herds. In fact, when CWD has been present in a captive population for over two years, over 90% of the animals will be infected. The disease is directly transmissible via saliva, urine, feces, blood, and muscle and is highly infectious.
Whom does CWD affect?
CWD has been found in populations of elk and deer on game farms in 22 states, Canada, and South Korea (see a PDF map of CWD in the United States). Captive populations of these cervids have tested positive for this disease in 13 of these states. In 2012 alone, CWD was discovered for the first time in Texas, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. To date, there is no proof of human infection, and scientists still do not understand the potential risk to humans.
What can be done?
Most importantly, to halt the continuing spread of the disease all states must cease the importation and exportation of cervids. Banning the transport of cervids will help to contain the disease and prevent further dissemination by the game farming industry. Canada has already prohibited the importation of cervids from the United States, and several states have banned the practice as well.
In order to reduce the potential of future biological threats from this and other zoonotic diseases on a larger scale, states must ban game farms and captive hunts. The high population densities that characterize captive hunt facilities greatly increase the risk of disease transmission. Animals are frequently fed at feeding stations, where salivary contact is inevitable—resulting in the infection of all penned animals from a single diseased individual. Furthermore, although there must legally be fencing around captive hunt ranches, animals often can and sometimes do escape from these facilities. In an effort to protect animals and the public, twenty-six states have already enacted full or partial bans on captive hunts.
The risk of CWD spreading to native populations of wildlife is taken very seriously. Thus far, testing and "depopulating" are the chosen methods of eradication. This method can be complicated because only deceased animals can be tested for CWD. CWD also has a long latency period, which means that the animals may not even show any symptoms of the disease for a long period of time. After one wild deer tested positive for CWD in early 2011, officials with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources shot 1,180 deer within a ten-mile radius in response. Certain states such as Colorado have rightly concluded that eradicating entire populations of wild animals is neither feasible nor efficient in stopping the disease. The state of Wisconsin has already spent over $35 million since 2002 in response to CWD outbreaks in the state.
October 24, 2012
Chronic Wasting Disease
An emerging threat
Chronic wasting disease is a progressive, fatal disease threatening captive and wild populations of deer and elk in certain areas of the United States. There is concern that this disease may spread further and affect more deer, elk, and/or moose herds. As a result, CWD has important scientific and political implications.
What is chronic wasting disease?
Where did CWD originate and how is it transmitted?
Whom does CWD affect?
What can be done?
What is chronic wasting disease?
CWD is a transmissible spongiform encephalopathy affecting deer and other cervids (animals belonging to the deer family). Abnormal proteins called prions attack the nervous system and brain of the infected animal. As CWD progresses, symptoms include reduced eating and weight loss, repetitive walking, possible blindness, excessive drinking, fine head tremors, loss of coordination, and increased salivating. The disease is fatal to infected animals.
Where did CWD originate and how is it transmitted?
CWD was first identified in captive mule deer in Colorado in the late 1960s. It was not observed in the wild until 1981. However, the origin and cause of the disease have never been definitively determined. Most wildlife scientists agree that CWD proliferated in captive herds. In fact, when CWD has been present in a captive population for over two years, over 90% of the animals will be infected. The disease is directly transmissible via saliva, urine, feces, blood, and muscle and is highly infectious.
Whom does CWD affect?
CWD has been found in populations of elk and deer on game farms in 22 states, Canada, and South Korea (see a PDF map of CWD in the United States). Captive populations of these cervids have tested positive for this disease in 13 of these states. In 2012 alone, CWD was discovered for the first time in Texas, Iowa, and Pennsylvania. To date, there is no proof of human infection, and scientists still do not understand the potential risk to humans.
What can be done?
Most importantly, to halt the continuing spread of the disease all states must cease the importation and exportation of cervids. Banning the transport of cervids will help to contain the disease and prevent further dissemination by the game farming industry. Canada has already prohibited the importation of cervids from the United States, and several states have banned the practice as well.
In order to reduce the potential of future biological threats from this and other zoonotic diseases on a larger scale, states must ban game farms and captive hunts. The high population densities that characterize captive hunt facilities greatly increase the risk of disease transmission. Animals are frequently fed at feeding stations, where salivary contact is inevitable—resulting in the infection of all penned animals from a single diseased individual. Furthermore, although there must legally be fencing around captive hunt ranches, animals often can and sometimes do escape from these facilities. In an effort to protect animals and the public, twenty-six states have already enacted full or partial bans on captive hunts.
The risk of CWD spreading to native populations of wildlife is taken very seriously. Thus far, testing and "depopulating" are the chosen methods of eradication. This method can be complicated because only deceased animals can be tested for CWD. CWD also has a long latency period, which means that the animals may not even show any symptoms of the disease for a long period of time. After one wild deer tested positive for CWD in early 2011, officials with the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources shot 1,180 deer within a ten-mile radius in response. Certain states such as Colorado have rightly concluded that eradicating entire populations of wild animals is neither feasible nor efficient in stopping the disease. The state of Wisconsin has already spent over $35 million since 2002 in response to CWD outbreaks in the state.
stepheck said:
Stepcheck I do belong to my state association ,whitetails of oklahoma. Like I said I have only been in the industry a short time. We are still building our farm and making contacts.
As for what I am doing to help other farms and my state, I make sure that I vote for conservitive ag minded candidates I also urge everyone that I know to vote.
We have opened our farm to countless groups trying to educate them about deer farming , the truth about cwd and other diseases.
I am looking to get more involved with my states association.
Daren Lewis
Lawrence Creek Whitetails
Joined May 2009
2,369 Posts | 0+
Chillicothe, Missouri
I can tell everyone that when Missouri was first threatened by MDC with closing Missouri Deer Farms down.........Charlie & Lauri and The Cattlemans Association were the ONLY Groups who showed up at the State Capital to HELP us fight MDC and their PLAN !
I Remember asking WHERE is NADeFA..........???? We PAY THEM.........????? To HAVE SOMEONE here to HELP US????? That's WHY WE PAY THEM?????
Shawn..............Do YOU Remember................"You Folks in Missouri..................Just need to take a CHILL PILL................it's gonna be OK..........????
Well WE here in Missouri...................We QUITE Chillin! and Moved ahead apperently WITHOUT You ???
That's WHY................My Family is No Longer NADeFA Member or goes to the NADeFA Conference,Donates Items to NADeFA Auctions................Oh and when You Shawn did return my call..............You still wouldn't LISTEN to what I as a "Member" was trying to talk to you about........I could barely get a word in and I got pissed both times I tried
I still would like an ANSWER as well ?
I Remember asking WHERE is NADeFA..........???? We PAY THEM.........????? To HAVE SOMEONE here to HELP US????? That's WHY WE PAY THEM?????
Shawn..............Do YOU Remember................"You Folks in Missouri..................Just need to take a CHILL PILL................it's gonna be OK..........????
Well WE here in Missouri...................We QUITE Chillin! and Moved ahead apperently WITHOUT You ???
That's WHY................My Family is No Longer NADeFA Member or goes to the NADeFA Conference,Donates Items to NADeFA Auctions................Oh and when You Shawn did return my call..............You still wouldn't LISTEN to what I as a "Member" was trying to talk to you about........I could barely get a word in and I got pissed both times I tried
I still would like an ANSWER as well ?
Whitetail Sanctuary said:I can tell everyone that when Missouri was first threatened by MDC with closing Missouri Deer Farms down.........Charlie & Lauri and The Cattlemans Association were the ONLY Groups who showed up at the State Capital to HELP us fight MDC and their PLAN !
I Remember asking WHERE is NADeFA..........???? We PAY THEM.........????? To HAVE SOMEONE here to HELP US????? That's WHY WE PAY THEM?????
Shawn..............Do YOU Remember................"You Folks in Missouri..................Just need to take a CHILL PILL................it's gonna be OK..........????
Well WE here in Missouri...................We QUITE Chillin! and Moved ahead apperently WITHOUT You ???
That's WHY................My Family is No Longer NADeFA Member or goes to the NADeFA Conference,Donates Items to NADeFA Auctions................Oh and when You Shawn did return my call..............You still wouldn't LISTEN to what I as a "Member" was trying to talk to you about........I could barely get a word in and I got pissed both times I tried
I still would like an ANSWER as well ?
Awesome Post....Yup, We have Moved ahead, and doin okay at that....
I am not attacking NADEFA, I just want to know where NADEFA stands on this-in detail-on a public forum. We deserve that as paying members of our national organization and I am sure that Shawn will spell it out to us. I really don't want to stop raising deer and take this situation as a real threat--because it is.
Four Seasons Whitetails said:
Mike that's ridiculous......NADefa can explain why they support these standards but they have chosen not to!!....even a brief explanation is better than NONE!!.....and finially people are NOT going to take it anymore!! And they shouldn't!! We as paying memebers deserve an answer! Enough is enough!! They need to explain themselves!!!
Joined Apr 2009
1,428 Posts | 0+
Northeast Wisconsin
Mike and/or Angie,
I have ready your many posts on this forum on many different threads. You support NADEFA. How can anyone in their right mind want any government to regulate them out of business? The standards regulate you out of business. Plain and simple! The ACA is against the standards. NADEFA is not a member of the ACA. I conclude that NADEFA supports the standards. The question is why?
I have ready your many posts on this forum on many different threads. You support NADEFA. How can anyone in their right mind want any government to regulate them out of business? The standards regulate you out of business. Plain and simple! The ACA is against the standards. NADEFA is not a member of the ACA. I conclude that NADEFA supports the standards. The question is why?
Blondie said:
Excellent post....When did Sportsmen, Hunters and Our Industry start considering that the Humane Society has the Best interest of Our industry at Hand?
Yes and soon you will see how the standards impacted our court case, or should I say tried, thankfully for us, they haven't been implemented as pointed out by our legal council. Our judge made it clear her job is to make a decision based on the laws in place at the time of quarantine, not what may nor may not happen in the future.
Exactly Rhonda........had those Standards (that NADefa supports) been in place at the time you discovered CWD in your deer, where would you stand now in your court case? I think we all know that answer! Mike I realize you support NADefa and I have always supported them too......however, I can tell you this....with the choices they are making lately......like not supporting the Brakkes in their case financially and with their hand picking the ballots before their voting members get to vote as well as with their supporting these Standards that will be paralyzing to this Industry and not even giving a good solid reason for doing so to date .....well these choices make me question whether they still have this Industries best interests in mind. I realize what NADefa has done for us in the past........however, that is what they were paid to do by all the members who support them........and the past is the past......we need to focus on the here and now! Rhonda I am so glad these standards were not in place when your problems began........now you at least have a fighting chance!!
Joined Oct 2009
3,165 Posts | 1+
upstate ny
Blondie said:
Well first of all that just shows how much you dont know about us, Where we stand with Shawn and NADEFA or our part as Ny Assoc leaders as ACA members and supporters!!!
For someone to sit on this computer and say what someone is or is not doing without ever talking to that person in real life to find out what their thoughts,Plans and future lies on a subject is worthless actions and causes more problems than results.
There are always alot of side line quarterbacks it seems. I believe there are so many things that go on behind closed doors that we all would be shocked! Do i agree with the crap that goes on, Heck no! Do we fight everyday to keep our borders open and work with our state Rep's. Dumb Question!
Do i thank Shawn and NADEFA for the help they are/have been giving us to keep our borders open. Yes! Do i thank him and them for all they have done to date, You betcha.
Do i thank Laurie and Charlie for the emails and support for our border fight and the work on the ACA and every other person we are on the phone with during every ACA phone call. We sure do!
I just got off the phone with a NADEFA board member and had an interesting conversation about their thoughts and what they think. Have You?
Dont question someones thoughts or moves if you are not on the field playing with them but sitting in the sideline quarterbacks chair!!!
Joined Apr 2009
1,428 Posts | 0+
Northeast Wisconsin
Joined Feb 2013
780 Posts | 1+
Markleville IN
NADEFA supports going forth with the program standards designed to put us out of business,correct?
Then that is enough for me to say they are not supporting me as a deer farmer and paying member.
Mike it can be a two way street, has NADEFA asked/polled the members, they havent called any members that I know. I'm not saying that to start a fight just to get some people thinking. Maybe if you lived in timbuck two and werent in your position you would feel the way other members are feeling!!!!
Then that is enough for me to say they are not supporting me as a deer farmer and paying member.
Mike it can be a two way street, has NADEFA asked/polled the members, they havent called any members that I know. I'm not saying that to start a fight just to get some people thinking. Maybe if you lived in timbuck two and werent in your position you would feel the way other members are feeling!!!!
Four Seasons Whitetails said:
Mike, why does this have to turn into an argument? Why do we have to ***** at each other? These are legitimate questions that need to be answered to all of us. Is this not the proper venue? Shouldn't their stance on these standards be put up here in writing for us all to see? If this is not the proper venue, then what is? Everything that has been asked seems quite reasonable to me but for some reason that I can't quite figure out you think otherwise. People, Members are nervous and even scared and this is where we all turn to for answers isn't it?