Is wisconsin jumping the gun?

[rick]

Is Wisconsin jumping the gun by killing 15,000 deer after testing 500 and finding 9 % infected with cwd?

[rick]

Sorry had to change the wording. Hope I didn't confuse anyone who allready voted.

[NEMichsportsman]

Thats 1350 infected deer. I have no idea what the numerical progression would be if this was to go unchecked, but it seems some kind of action is warranted. My biggest concern relates to how the disease was acquired by the Wisconsin deer herd. If that question goes unanswered then there is nothing to prevent the situation from recurring. This could be a moot point, as there is probably no way to eliminate the condition in the field. We have seen the rather dismal results of the TB erradication program already in place in Michigan...

jp

[sadocf1]

"Oh ye of little faith''- jp- Our state/federal Bovine TB Eradication Program has only been in place since 1917- a mere 85 years- so cut us a little slack- there is no rush- these things take time- that is the way things of this nature are dealt with in the " real world ''

[Shoes]

Rick,

Probably moot now, but a third choice for the poll might be "Not Sure". This might give an indication as to whether or not people feel they are adequately informed/educated on CWD. Many, like myself, who feel they simply aren't sure may not vote. Though many of the posts on this topic have made reference to, or cited, articles or other works/studies, many include or consist of emotionally-charged editorializing which may not be necessarily bad, but can sometimes muddy the waters. I think most have made one thing clear, the issue needs to be taken seriously, but there is a lot we don't know yet.

[marty]

My two cents worth. Why don't they find the source of the problem first? Game farms sound like a good start. Maybe check ones nearest the positive wild deer.....marty

[Tom Morang]

I think they are doing that too Marty.

http://datcp.state.wi.us/servlet/press.release.ResultServlet?id=1039

[sadocf1]

Tom; This PR from the Wisconsin Dept. of AGRICULTURE, TRADE and CONSUMER PROTECTION - THE TITLE INDICATES THEY PROTECT INDUSTRY- IT IS THEIR CONSIDERED OPINION THAT DEER FEED OR ANTLER SUPPLEMENTS containing animal protein being the source of CWD is HIGHLY UNLIKELY- THEY CITE THE 1997 FDA BAN on feeding ruminant protein back to ruminants as proof
If one would take the time to dial up the Official Mad Cow Disease Homepage- click new site- click here- one could find a wealth of information about all the transmissable spongiform encephalopathies including how well the feed companies are complying to the FDA's ban, which does not prohibit the feeding of ruminant protein to swine and poultry, nor does it prohibit the feeding of swine and poultry protein to ruminants.
I predict that that the "doe in heat '' deer urine scent attractants will be available come deer season this fall- not to worry-industry is all important in the "real world''

[sadocf1]

DNR Commissioners propose a statewide baiting limit of 2 gallons
Good deal !! them boys can show us where the bear defecated in the buckwheat- this demonstrates how the Precautionary Principle can work either way- yesterday for the buck in the woods- today for the buck in the cash register- the hunters will have a better chance of sucess and the bait dealers and the producers will not suffer financially
By donating his head to the lab the "buck in the woods'' is contributing to the advancement of science, and for the ultimate good of future generations, not only of his own kind, but also for mankind. Is'nt that nice !!

[Tom Morang]

A statewide limit of 2 gallons for baiting and feeding "except" for a seven county area in the TB zone where baiting and feeding will remain banned. Last year baiting was allowed in 452 as an experiment and the results clearly showed that the use of bait while hunting didn't increase the kill.

Your prediction about the scent industry sales for this fall is more than likely on the money. Pun intended.

Isn't it the job of all Ag Departments to promote the industry?

[Shoes]

Just a point of clarification, and correct me if I'm wrong. As I recall, the baiting issue in 452 was miserably mishandled. First it was banned. Then an informal survey indicated that, without baiting, the kill would be down due to fewer hunters. It was then decided (at the last minute) to re-allow restricted baiting. Again, as I recall, the decision to re-allow baiting was so late, it didn't get into the hunting guide, so an addendum was printed. There is no data to indicate how the mishandling and poor communication to hunters affected hunter plans in 452. There are other, more credible studies to show correlation between baiting and non-baiting success ratios. The 452 type of mishandling serves only to distort data and should probably not be referred to as an "experiment" showing credible results. It really proved nothing. This wasn't the DNR, but rather (as usual) the NRC.

[Tom Morang]

Shoes says: "There are other, more credible studies to show correlation between baiting and non-baiting success ratios."

I won't disagree with you on that one. Would you list the other studies you mentioned and give us an idea of the results of the baiting vs. non-baiting success rates?

You are quite correct, this was an NRC experiment, not one that was asked for by the DNR. In any event I don't think the outcome would have been any different had the hunting public been given even another month of notice. There was plenty of notice time prior to the gun season and that is when the majority of deer are killed.

[Shoes]

First, with respect to the studies, I don't catalog everything I read, so from the standpoint of 'listing' the studies, no I can't readily do that. I can only tell you that of those I have read, the success ratio for firearm hunters is slightly (0-5%) higher. For bow hunters, it is substantially (20-30%) higher. I believe some studies have been cited by QDMA, may have been where I learned of some of them. Don't recall for sure. I believe I have read others in one or more of the 4 outdoor magazines to which I subscribe. There was no differentiation for bucks vs does.

Second, I own two pieces of property in 452(though only one is huntable). That doesn't mean anything except that it makes me want to make an effort to keep tuned to what is happening in that area. There are a lot of bow hunters in that area, and from what I recall the NRC realized at the last minute that their numbers were down substantially, and that loss was negating efforts to increase overall kill. I disagree that there was plenty of notice prior to gun season. There was a lot of public hoopla when it was banned, but I heard very little when it was reinstated. Either way, I still contend it was handled miserably.

[Tom Morang]

Back to the original topic..............


Original URL: http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/may02/43268.asp


Editorial--Key legislative vote on deer

From the Journal Sentinel

Last Updated: May 14, 2002


Some landowners in southwestern Wisconsin are arguing that the state Department of Natural Resources is moving too fast in responding to the appearance of chronic wasting disease. At the same time, other critics maintain that the state agriculture department moved too slowly in trying to control the spread of the disease.

But this week, legislators must ignore such distractions, keep their eye on the target and deliver to the DNR the weapons it needs to fight what could indeed be the greatest threat to animal health Wisconsin has ever faced.

Chronic wasting disease, a relative of mad cow disease, has the potential for decimating the state's deer herd. Left unchecked, the disease could wreak havoc with a vital industry and the favorite sport of thousands of state residents and tourists.

And the more dense the deer population, the faster the disease spreads. Which is why the DNR wants to wipe out the 15,000-deer herd near Mount Horeb and why it wants to extend the deer season and why it wants private landowners to join the hunt or let others hunt on their property.

Some landowners are nervous about that, arguing that the DNR's plan is premature, and their concern is understandable. There are safety issues any time there's a hunt, and the chance for tragedy goes up as the number of hunters increases. That's why hunter safety courses and special care are good ideas for all hunters who respond to this crisis.

But this is a crisis, and waiting too long could be disastrous. As one deer official put it last month, those who aren't helping are part of the problem.

The Legislature can best help by giving the DNR the money and authority it needs for the hunt and for an expansion of the state's capacity to test killed deer.

Meantime, former Natural Resources Secretary George Meyer can best help by providing some evidence for his charges that state agriculture officials failed to adequately regulate deer and elk farms, thus opening the door to the spread of chronic wasting disease.

It's possible that Meyer and the other critics who made the charges on Monday are right. No one has yet determined how the disease got to Wisconsin from the Rocky Mountain states where it had previously been contained.

In fact, there's a lot that isn't known about the ailment. But one thing that is known is that it has shown up here only in wild deer. Harry Kriegel, spokesman for the Wisconsin Commercial Deer and Elk Farmers Association, points out that there has not been a single case of chronic wasting disease on any game farm in Wisconsin. The association is cooperating with state officials and has a program for eradicating the disease. State Veterinarian Clarence

Siroky also disputed Meyer's claim.

Monitor deer and elk on farms more closely? Sure, but then monitor all the state's deer and elk more closely, including wild deer in northern herds. But making charges not backed by the evidence - at least not at this time - only adds to the hysteria. That's a disservice to the public and the last thing Wisconsin needs.




Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on May 15, 2002.

[Tom Morang]

Whoa on deer kill, property owners' lawyer tells DNR

By Samara Kalk
May 17, 2002


The Department of Natural Resources is jumping the gun on eradication as the way to combat chronic wasting disease, argues an attorney representing property owners in the zone targeted for a mass deer kill.

David Mandell is fuming about the accelerated pace of the DNR's plan to eradicate all deer in a 287-square-mile zone where 14 deer with CWD have been discovered since late February.

"The DNR is skewing the statistics and hasn't been completely open with the Legislature and the public in an effort to stampede the public into accepting their proposal," said Mandell, who is representing landowners in and around the town of Vermont, where the epidemic is centered.

As the state Legislature broadened the DNR's powers to fight the disease Thursday, Gov. Scott McCallum and other Wisconsin officials were in Washington, D.C., garnering federal support.

The state Legislature authorized $4 million in state funds early Thursday when it met in special session. McCallum's request for $4 million in federal funds to battle the deadly deer and elk disease remains uncertain.

McCallum was grilled by Rep. Jay Inslee of Washington, the top Democrat on the House Resources subcommittee on forests and forest health. Inslee cited four-year-old memos to and from state officials raising the possibility that chronic wasting disease was introduced to Wisconsin by a game farm animal.

"I'm having a hard time figuring out how a state like Wisconsin, that is so dependent on the integrity of its food industry to its economy, would not have responded quicker and in a more effective way to this infestation," Inslee said.

McCallum asserted that animals were tested at the time and none came back positive.

Mandell, in the meantime, is interested in seeing DNR records of how many animals were tested and where.

Todd Peterson, of the DNR's Bureau of Wildlife Management, said the agency has tested between 800 and 900 animals - not including the 500 recently sampled in south-central Wisconsin - in nearly one-third of the agency's deer management units.

"We haven't sampled as much as we would have liked. We are clearly going to step that up now because the resources have been made available by the Legislature," Peterson said.

It is unlikely that the disease is in other parts of the state "because we have looked," he said. And when the agency tested, "everywhere except Vermont township, we haven't found it."

The DNR has had a wildlife health program in the state for 17 years. And while it has not specifically investigated for CWD, it has relied on reports from the public and its field biologists since the mid-1980s, said Peterson.

Animals that look suspicious or are found dead are subject to necropsy, he said.

"So we've done some kind of surveillance, in fact, for quite a long time, and it has never shown up," Peterson said.

The state Legislature Thursday gave the DNR the ability to shoot deer from aircraft and boats and across dirt roads.

These scenarios also trouble Mandell.

"If the landowners don't cooperate, what are they going to do, just come on people's land shooting? Flyovers? Make it like Vietnam?" he said.

Mandell cited expert testimony Charles Southwick gave in Washington Thursday. Southwick - a professor emeritus of environmental, population and organismic biology at the University of Colorado and former professor of pathobiology at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore - said that the mass slaughter of infected animals would not be effective.

"Present and recent control strategies of mass culling do not seem to be working. The disease has spread despite extensive slaughter of both captive and wild deer and elk," he told the U.S. House Committee on Resources.

Eradication plans have even been known to spread the disease, he said.

Mass extermination can increase movements and dispersal of deer and elk, Southwick said, and destroy healthy stock, which often holds the key to genetic resistance.

Mandell concurs.

"If they start shooting, is that going to disperse sick animals out of the eradication zone into other areas of the state? These are migratory creatures to some degree. They don't know where the state line is. They don't know where borders are. They don't know where the eradication zone is."

The likelihood of being able to kill 100 percent of the deer is impossible, Mandell said.

"Realistically they are hoping for between 80 and 90 percent, but then if you have 20 percent of the herd left and some of them are sick, how does that solve anything?" he said.

Mandell lives in the town of Middleton, about eight or nine miles east of the hot zone, and said he can identify with the fears of his clients.

"Think if you live out there. You can't go horseback riding. You can't go snowmobiling. You can't go biking. You can't go hiking. You can't go walking. There are going to be yahoos everywhere running around shooting willy-nilly," he said.

People who own land in the target area are also concerned about the adverse economic impact the hunt is going to have on their property values and on the aesthetics of their land, said Mandell.

"If the DNR knew it was going to be effective, people might be willing to consider that. But they don't even know. This is just a knee-jerk response," he said.

Biologist Matt McKay, an assistant big game ecologist for the DNR, maintains that the DNR plan is the best course. The agency needs to harvest as many animals as possible to reduce the spread of the disease, he said.

Leaving it alone would be a mistake, said McKay.

"The more we don't hunt, the deer population will increase to a certain point and will increase the rate of transmission," he said.

The DNR's Peterson said the agency will use the hunting season to collect the majority of the deer it seeks to eradicate. While the state Legislature gave the department new authority Thursday, the DNR, along with the Natural Resources Board, will develop a specific plan.

As for critics of the DNR plan, Peterson has limited patience for them.

"Do you know what their alternative is?"



Published: 9:47 AM 5/17/02

[rick]

Wow 90 % got this poll wrong.
My threads come from the heart, not common scense, and i'm not surprised to see that the folks in the infected area don't want to see a mass slaughter in their backyard. Would you like to look out your kitchen window and see orange in every tree, gut shoot deer everywhere.
I feel that I can relate because I own property in 068. Until last year I was in 452. By the way, I went up there this weekend hoping to get a glimpse of a fawn and did not see a deer. I blame this on the fact that for the last several years hunters have been allowed to kill as many deer as they want.
As I read what I write It sounds selfish but facing the future of deer hunting in my area it sure looks slim to none. My question is what price do we pay because some group says this is the best solution to the problem. Are we all sheep?
Having wasted all this space I would like to thank Tom for being fair as to what he posts. I do see both sides and that is what I would hope a person that supplies info on a subject to do.
And Bob @BBt. Thanks for having a conscience. I'm in a no feed zone and the guy on the corner sells it year round. The problem is that my nieghbors are buying it. It makes me realize how much control your kind of shop has on the buying public, hell, if I can't get bait, maybe I will hunt a funnel instead.

[troll]

It seems strange to me that the transmission of the disease is unknown according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and yet Wisconsin has decided on a solution to stopping the spreading of the disease. It seems to me that they are just trying to do something, anything, to attempt to stop the spreading of the disease. Killing thousands of deer may not necessarily be the right solution. Even Colorado is still studying the relationship of deer density and disease prevalence.

In my opinion, by randomly killing deer to simply lower the possibility of transmission is jumping the gun for two reasons:

1. We should probably get a grasp as to the source and mode of transmission first. The fact of the matter is that deer were killed in pens when this disease first broke. They cleaned the pens and put deer in up to 1 year after the disease deer were killed. The second herd still contracted the disease. From where?

2. We may be killing off deer that possess a genetic resistance to the disease. Removing those genes from the deer gene pool may be condeming the entire population to death due to CWD.

Questions I have:

1. Was the discovery of CWD in Wisconsin the first test ever conducted there?

2. Could this disease have been present in the population, including Michigan's, for hundred's of years before we discovered spongiform encephalopathy?

3. How prevalent is this disease? Is it eradicating the entire population of deer and elk in Colorado and Wyoming?

Let me know if my info is inaccurate by giving me a link. Thanks.

troll

[Tom Morang]

http://cfapp.rockymountainnews.com/cwd/killer/


http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/cwd/

[troll]

Thanks for the links! Very informing.

The most frightening quote:

"Colorado Division of Wildlife veterinarian Miller, Wyoming Game and Fish veterinarian Thorne and others believe in the "lateral transfer" of the disease, meaning it passes directly through feces, urine or saliva. It also seems likely that it contaminates the ground and plants, and then remains contractible for many years."

If true, will the culling of deer in the "infected areas" need to continue for years to come?

[Pinefarm]

The answer to your question is yes. That's why some of us are so concerned about us getting it here in Michigan. If a CWD deer is found in your area, the DNR will want the area completely depopulated for 10 years. If that happens, kiss your property or favorite hunting spot goodbye. If CWD had been here before, we'd have known it. The outward symtoms are pretty obvious. Very emaciated deer that just stand trembling when you walk up to them and they have buckets full of drool dripping out of their mouth. One of the first ones killed in Wisconsin was a nice buck. The hunting party did a big drive and when they were done, they noticed the buck laying under a tree. The kid that shot it just walked over to it and the buck never even got up. He shot it laying there. The kids dad knew that the deer had some kind of disease because he wouldn't even let his kid gut it. The called the WDNR right away. This isn't like TB where the outwards signs may be though to see. A deer in the advanced stages of CWD is visably a very, very sick animal.

[Fierkej]

Hi,
My replies are in upper case:
Jean

It seems strange to me that the transmission of the disease is unknown according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture and yet Wisconsin has decided on a solution to stopping the spreading of the disease. It seems to me that they are just trying to do something, anything, to attempt to stop the spreading of the disease. Killing thousands of deer may not necessarily be the right solution. Even Colorado is still studying the relationship of deer density and disease prevalence.

FROM CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE EPIZOOTIOLOGY (MILLER ET AL, JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES, VOL. 36, NO. 4, OCTOBER 2000), "SEC- AND AGE CLASS SPECIFIC PREVALENCE DATA ARE CONSISTENT WITH PREVIOUS REPORTS THAT ADULT CERVIDS MAY CONTRACT CWD. THESE DATA ALSO SUPPORT THE HYPOTHESIS THAT LATERAL TRANSMISSION DRIVES CWD DYNAMICS." (LATERAL TRANSMISSION MEANING DEER TO DEER TRANSMISSION)

In my opinion, by randomly killing deer to simply lower the possibility of transmission is jumping the gun for two reasons:

1. We should probably get a grasp as to the source and mode of transmission first. The fact of the matter is that deer were killed in pens when this disease first broke. They cleaned the pens and put deer in up to 1 year after the disease deer were killed. The second herd still contracted the disease. From where?

FROM EPIDEMIOLOGY OF CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE IN CAPTIVE ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK (MILLER ET AL, JOURNAL OF WILDLIFE DISEASES, VOL. 34, NO. 3, 1998),

"IN 1985, ALL CERVIDS RESIDING AT THE FWRF (FOOTHILLS WILDLIFE RESEARCH FACILITY) AND ITS SATELLITE FACILITIES WERE KILLED IN AN ATTEMPT TO ERADICATE CWD. PADDOCKS WHERE AFFECTED CERVIDS HAD RESIDED WERE TREATED WITH 1,000 PPM CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION VIA MOBILE SPRAYER AND HELICOPTER, PLOWED TO A DEPTH OF ABOUT 0.3 METER, AND TREATED A SECOND TIME; SHELTERS, FEED BUNKERS, AND AUTOMATIC WATERERES WERE EITHER REPLACED OR HAD CLEANED TWICE WITH 1,000 PPM CALCIUM HYPOCHLORITE SOLUTION. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE FWRF'S PERIMETER WAS ENCLOSED BY A 2.5 M GAME-PROOF WOVEN WIRE FENCE THAT PROVIDED SPATIAL BUFFERS OF GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 6 M BETWEEN THE PERIMETER FENCE AND ALL ANIMAL PADDOCKS TO PRECLUDE FENCE-LINE CONTACT BETWEEN RESEARCH ANIMALS AND FREE-RANGING CERVIDS OR DOMESTIC LIVESTOCK. PADDOCKS DESTINED TO HOUSE THE NEW ELK HERD ALSO WERE SEPARATED FROM BIGHORN SHEEP AND MOUNTAIN GOAT PADDOCKS BY GREATER THAN OR EQUAL TO 1 M. BUFFERS. THE FUTURE ELK PADDOCKS WERE LEFT FALLOW FOR GREATER THAN 12 MONTHS. NO HOOF STOCK OTHER THAN ELK USED THESE PADDOCKS AFTER 1986. THE FWRF'S SECOND ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK HERD WAS STARTED IN JUNE 1986 WITH 12 LESS THAN 1 WEEK OLD WILD BORN FEMALE CALVES. ALL OF THESE CALVES WERE CAPTURED IN ROCKY MOUNTAN NATIONAL PARK, CO…DURING JUNE 1986. ADDITIONS TO THE HERD AFTER 1986 INCLUDED BIRTHS OF TWO CALVES IN 1990, TWO IN 1991, ADDITIONS NOT BORN ON SITE ORIGINATED IN COLORADO, BUT OUTSIDE LARIMER COUNTY. …ASIDE FROM EVAPORATED MILK, NO ANIMAL-DERIVED PROTEINS WERE INCLUDED IN ELK DIETS……BETWEEN JUNE 1986 AND MAY 1997, CWD WAS THE ONLY NATURAL CAUSE OF ADULT MORTALITY IN ELK AT THE FWRF. ….ALL AFFECTED ELK WERE FEMALES AND WERE MEMBERS OF THE FOUNDING COHORT CAPTURED AND RAISED IN 1986. THE INDEX CASE WAS CONFIRMED BY HISTOPATHOLOGY IN SEPTEMBER 1989….
ASSUMING THAT PREVALENCE INCREASES SLOWLY OVER SEVERAL DECADES, AS FORCAST BY OUR MODELS, AND THAT SUCH INCREASES ARE UNIFORM ACROSS POPULATIONS AND OVER TIME, IT FOLLOWS THAT CWD PREVALENCE SHOULD BE HIGHEST IN AREAS WHERE IT HAS BEEN PRESENT LONGEST (PROVIDED ITS INTRODUCTION IS RELATIVELY RECENT). APPLYING THESE ASSUMPTIONS TO OUR FIELD DATA, THE PATTERN OF GEOGRAPHIC VARIATION IN PREVALENCE OBSERVED HERE SUGGESTS AN EPICENTER OF HIGHEST PREVALENCE WELL NORTH OF FORT COLLINS, WITH SUBSEQUENT SPREAD AMOUNG DEER SUBPOPULATIONS NORTH AND SOUTH ALONG THE FRONT AND LARIMIE RANGES FOOTHILLS….THIS HYPOTHESIZED PATTERN OF DISEASE SPREAD WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH ESTABLISHED MIGRATION AND MOVEMENT CORRIDORES FOR MULE DEER, WHICH ARE PARTICULARLY WELL-DOCUMENTED ALONG THE POUDRE/SOUTH PLATTE RIVER CORRIDOR IN NE COLORADO. BECAUSE THE FORT COLLINS RESEARCH FACILITIES WHERE CWD WAS FIRST DESCRIBED SIT NEAR THE PERIPHERY OF THE MU AGGREGATES WHERE CWD PREVALENCE IS CURRENTLY HIGHEST, THE NOTION THAT THESE FACILITIES WERE THE ORIGINAL SOURCE OF CWD SEEMS QUESTIONABLE."
I THINK THEY MAY BE IMPLYING THAT THE ELK BROUGHT IN TO REPOPULATE THE PADDOCKS BROUGHT THE DISEASE WITH THEM.


2. We may be killing off deer that possess a genetic resistance to the disease. Removing those genes from the deer gene pool may be condeming the entire population to death due to CWD.

Questions I have:

1. Was the discovery of CWD in Wisconsin the first test ever conducted there?
FROM WISONSIN'S WEBSITE: "WI HAS SURVEYED WILD DEER FOR CWD SINCE 1999. OVER 1,000 DEER HAVE BEEN SAMPLED."

2. Could this disease have been present in the population, including Michigan's, for hundred's of years before we discovered spongiform encephalopathy?
SCRAPIE HAS BEEN A KNOWN TSE FOR 25O YEARS.
CWD HAS BEEN PRESENT IN WILD UNGULATE POPULATIONS SINCE AT LEAST 1981, BUT PROBABLY MUCH LONGER.

3. How prevalent is this disease? Is it eradicating the entire population of deer and elk in Colorado and Wyoming?
INFECTION RATES IN COLORADO ENDEMIC AREAS VARY BETWEEN YEARS, LOCATION, HERDS, AND SPECIES. IT RANGES FROM LESS THAN 1% TO 11% IN NE COLORADO.
FROM THE ABOVE ARTICLE: "LEFT UNMANAGED, THE SIGNIFICANCE OF CWD AND ITS IMPACTS ON POPULATIONS ARE UNCERTAIN, BUT MODELS PREDICT THAT EPIDEMICS SUSTAINED OVER 30-50 YEARS COULD REDUCE AFFECTED MULE DEER POPULATIONS DRAMATICALLY."

Let me know if my info is inaccurate by giving me a link. Thanks.

troll

[Benelli]

Very enlightening Jean, Thanks again for you input.

[sadocf1]

TME- transmissable mink encephalopathy- 1947- first outbreak occurred in ranch mink that ate dead and downer cattle along with packing plant by-products.
The second outbreak occurred in Wisconsin - cattle were part of the feed mix.
Two outbreaks- Wisconsin ranch mink- 1963- feed source limited to dead and downer cattle
Then there was the 1985 Stetsonville outbreak- investigated by professor Richard Marsh, a veterinarian with the Wisconsin Ag. College. This mink rancher kept detailed feeding records- fed only downer cows with a few horses thrown in.
Marsh believed that he had at least strong circumstantial evidence that a TSE similiar to mad cow disease already existed in the US.
To test his theory Marsh pureed brain matter from mink that died in the Stetsonville outbreak and injected the material into test animals; 14 healthy mink, 8 ferrets, 2 squirrel monkeys, 12 hamsters, 45 mice, and 2 bull calves
The mice all stayed healthy
The mink went down first, 4 months after
The monkeys showed symptoms at 9 and 13 months
2 hamsters survived, but the rest died at 15 @ 16 months
The 2 bull calves went down in months 18 @ 19
The ferrets all but 1, 28 to 38 months
The bull calves were apparently healthy till they suddenly collapsed, were unable to regain their feet- did not show the brain lesions typical of BSE, HOWEVER , THIS EXPERIMENT DEMONSTRATES A TSE MUST BE PRESENT IN WISCONSIN
CATTLE

[trapstercarl]

Is wisconsin jumping the gun?? @#%#@$% NO if cwd spreads kiss deer hunting goodbye.Tb is just a annoyance compared to CWD.if it reach's michigan it will be unstoppable,the entire midwest will be erradicated of deer. carl

[Steve]

Trapster I'm in 100% agreement.

[TheSpinner]

last bunch had more in them.....we are even checking road kills now...the area has been expanded and the number increased to 35,000

[silverbullet]

As someone who owns property in the UP I have to agree with the eradication. Although I feel deeply for the unfortunate hunters who own property in the affected area, to fathom the economic and biological ramifications if this thing becomes an epidemic is scary. Just imagine the UP with a deer season in only select areas, or with areas where we were unsure of whether or not we could eat the deer, or worse.........no deer season at all. I'm sure the insurance companies would love it but they wouldn't give us a "no deer area discount". The entities within both states that are charged with this responsibility of stopping CWD have an incredibly difficult position to deal with. We have to trust them to make the right decisions and thats not easy. I say, if it means wiping out a 14 county area void of deer in Wisconsin then so be it. I'm sure that the economic ramifications will be deeply felt and for that I am sorry. Maybe the state should help out those who are affected monitarily and those who are to blame for the outbreak should be punished.......I don't know. If we had all the answers we'd all be rich.

[Tom Morang]

After initial shock, Wisconsin moved fast to combat CWD

By Gary Gerhardt, Rocky Mountain News
August 7, 2002

Word that chronic wasting disease had been found in three wild deer in Wisconsin earlier this year had the same effect as hearing a close relative had cancer, Robert Manwell, senior public affairs manager for the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, said Tuesday.

Attending the Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium in Denver, Manwell said, "For two days after Feb. 28, everyone was numb because we never had any reason to believe CWD would jump 400 miles east across the Mississippi River."

How it got started in a state where big game hunting is huge is unknown. About 500,000 white-tailed deer are killed by hunters each season in Wisconsin, officials said.

Perhaps it was a hunter who bagged a diseased deer or elk in Colorado, Wyoming or Nebraska and hauled it home.

The deadly prion that causes the disease could have been introduced into the environment if the animal was butchered outdoors.

Perhaps it was an infected deer that escaped from one of the state's game ranches.

Julie Langenberg, Natural Resources veterinarian, brought an audible murmur from the audience Tuesday when she said there are 975 elk and deer ranches in Wisconsin.

The possibility of cross-contamination between captive and wild animals is ever present.

"We have 24 documented deer escapes in the last 30 months, but the number is undoubtedly higher," Langenberg said.

Manwell said that after learning the initial three deer had tested positive for the disease, the three hunters who shot them were notified.

He said as soon as the shock faded, officials realized that based on the experience of other states that had CWD that they needed to move immediately.

They were on the phone to the "Mike Millers" of the world, asking what steps they should be taking. Miller is a Colorado Division of Wildlife veterinarian who has been working on CWD for years.

"They told us to sample another 500 deer, which we did, and found another 15 positives," Manwell said.

An eradication zone was established around Mount Horeb, southwest of Madison.

Officials also held public meetings around the state, which about 5,000 people attended. Another 3,000 people took part in a survey, with 88 percent in favor of culling the herds to cut down the chances of spreading the disease.

In addition, wildlife officials also proposed to stop the practices of baiting for deer by hunters and feeding deer.

"We went to the legislature and they passed both proposals," Manwell said. "Now it will cost you $1,100, plus confiscation of your gear and loss of hunting privileges for up to three years, for baiting.

"And you could be fined $262 for feeding deer as well."

[One Eye]

Yes, I do believe they are jumping the gun. I also believe that the have undertaken the impossible. Why hasn't Colorado taken the same approach? Most of the current science on this come from Colorado anyway. Colorado has "accepted" the fact that roughly 4-5% of their herd has this disease.

I agree with the above suggestions that the captive herds should be better srutinized. If I had my way, this practice would be eliminated. Of course, we wouldn't want to impact that small majority, would we?

Dan Frein

[Tom Morang]

I beleive that Colorado has an intense eradication program. Representatives from the Colorado Wildlife Division testified at the hearings in Wisconsin stating that the eradication efforts in Wisconsin is the proper and prudent course of action.

Are you sure you didn't mean to say Wyoming Dan?