CWD in CO and WY

[520 Road Sow]

Oh boy here we go........

 

[BuzzH]

My opinion, I think CWD is a big concern...and I also think its a complicated issue and answers are in short supply.

Having talked with the biologists here near Laramie, in the "ground zero" of CWD, they don't have clear answers either. All I can conclude, is it appears that rates of occurrence in mule deer are much higher than elk. In both cases, the percentages of animals with CWD doesn't seem to fluctuate much.

It seems to me that if CWD was going to spread through a herd, to the point that it would eliminate the entire herd, it would have already happened here as CWD was found here a long time ago. That hasn't happened.

Finally, I'm reluctant to ever think its a good idea to greatly reduce deer and elk herds in large geographic areas to try to "control" CWD. The things I've read about those herd reductions, hasn't proven to me that it works (as others have noted above).

Again, in my opinion, it surely makes sense to continue research, take actions we can to reduce the spread of it, have animals tested, and do what we can. I'm just not sold on draconian approaches like massive herd reductions...at least not yet.

Tough issue.

 

[jmveverka]

I would hate to be lumped in with the CWD deniers and the "much ado about nothing crowd", but I do think there is a danger in the rhetoric out of the CDC and the media about not eating a CWD positive animal. I'll test and do my part to help biologists track the disease, but then I will go home and have a bone in neck roast. The minute we start a conversation about hunting something and not eating it we open ourselves up to criticism from anti-hunters and even criticism from those who are OK with hunting-as long as it is about the food. We could also lose hunters or potential hunters if there is a perceived "danger" in eating meat.

Back to the original post - I am not in MT, WY or CO, but states everywhere are trying to do the right thing about CWD and I hate that the right thing is perceived as reducing populations. I live in Shenandoah County Virginia where deer densities on National Forest are near all-time lows. Right now we have no antlerless hunting during the gun season and an Antler Point Restriction on the SECOND buck you take. Because CWD has been detected in the area, VADGIF is proposing to open up more antlerless deer hunting and to remove the antler restrictions. How is slaughtering all the spikes and forkies going to stop CWD when it is the older deer spreading it--backward thinking sometimes.

 

[jtm307]

Much to do about nothing.

It sure gives the libtards another reason to disallow hunting, though-for the "SAFETY" of people.

Uncle Ted, is that you?

 

[Deleted member 28227]

My opinion, I think CWD is a big concern...and I also think its a complicated issue and answers are in short supply.

Having talked with the biologists here near Laramie, in the "ground zero" of CWD, they don't have clear answers either. All I can conclude, is it appears that rates of occurrence in mule deer are much higher than elk. In both cases, the percentages of animals with CWD doesn't seem to fluctuate much.

It seems to me that if CWD was going to spread through a herd, to the point that it would eliminate the entire herd, it would have already happened here as CWD was found here a long time ago. That hasn't happened.

Finally, I'm reluctant to ever think its a good idea to greatly reduce deer and elk herds in large geographic areas to try to "control" CWD. The things I've read about those herd reductions, hasn't proven to me that it works (as others have noted above).

Again, in my opinion, it surely makes sense to continue research, take actions we can to reduce the spread of it, have animals tested, and do what we can. I'm just not sold on draconian approaches like massive herd reductions...at least not yet.

Tough issue.

Have you herd much about the possibility of avian spread of the disease per the journal article I posted above?

I find many of the discussions about combating CWD to be troubling because it seems like we really don't have a handle on the vector of the disease and/or any historical data. I'm fully on board with the disease being a huge problem and with the idea that we should halt it's spread, but I'm curious about the evidence that humans are the primary vector.

The vector path as I understand it: deer in CO contracts the disease from grazing on the spot in a field where another, CWD, deer died, that deer is shot by a hunter from West Virginia who either drives across country with the deer gutted but whole in his truck, or quarters it and keeps the head whole. When the hunter from WV gets home he skins out the head and tosses it out behind his house where it decomposes and another deer just happens to graze in the exact spot.

I think occam would agree this path requires a ton of bad luck and assumptions, it seems more plausible that captive deer programs are to blame for the spread rather than hunters.

Even more plausible, that the disease started in CO on the plains, deer in close proximity to the original infected herd contracted the disease and decent number of animals died from the disease. Scavengers like crows, who have known migratory paths from Alberta and Saskatchewan to CO other plains states in the winter, consumed these infected deer and then shed the prions as they moved throughout their range.

If this later situation is the cause of the spread it seems like far from destroying herds we should be trying to limit scavengers from coming in contact nervous tissue, or target migratory scavengers.

I think the spread is likely a bit of all three...

 

[BuzzH]

I have not heard much about the avian spread of the disease.

I honestly don't know enough about CWD, and IMO nobody else does either, to agree or disagree with your post.

All of that sounds as probable as anything else I've read.

 

[Hunting Wife]

True that there is a lot that remains unknown about CWD, but I see a lot of posts on here that seem of the opinion that imperfect knowledge means zero knowledge and that’s just not true.

The scrapie hypothesis as the genesis of CWD is just that, but makes logical sense. However, scrapie surveillance and management for US domestic producers is extremely intensive and levels are very low. The spread of CWD across the country in wild ungulates is not due to domestic sheep.

The old line about CWD being around forever until suddenly spiking within the last few decades is completely illogical. A disease with a hallmark progression of nearly exponential growth when unmanaged does not simply lie dormant for hundreds of years and then suddenly spread like wildfire. Testing in areas prior to detections of the first positive, and then the explosive growth curve of distribution and prevalence observed after first detection make that pretty clear.

I’ll be curious to see the reactions of the “much ado about nothing” crowd if population trends in some CWD areas continue on the path they’re on.

As far as management goes.....Epidemiology would suggest that the only way to slow or stop a pathogen that persists in the environment and remains infective in absence of actual carriers, from continuing to infect animals is to prevent the susceptible population from coming into contact with that contaminated environment. The premise behind this idea isn’t new and is a bedrock principle used to manage all kinds of diseases, all over the world, every day. The only way this differs with CWD compared to other diseases is the time scale. You have to stay the course until the environment is no longer infectious which appears to be in the scale of decades in the case of CWD. This is what some states attempted to do with depopulation zones. However, if people would pause their bitching for a minute to recollect, every time this has been tried, the outrage from hunters has nipped that strategy in the bud very quickly, and thus the states fell back to managing CWD according to the wishes of the hunting population using techniques that really aren’t “managing” anything. It’s mostly passive monitoring and regulations for curbing human transport. And we watch it spread, and hunters get on the interwebs to say “See? That thing the state tried didn’t work. Poor management.” Well duh, of course it didn’t work. It was never given the chance to work. The public doesn’t have the stomach for what it would take to make it work, which is fine -democracy and all. But let’s be realistic about who has dictated the course of management thus far.

Is there any guarantee that some of these aggressive management strategies would have worked? Of course not. But they’ve worked for other diseases, so it would have been worth a shot early on when we had the option, to at least find out. Unfortunately that train has left the station so we’ll never know.

 

[hank4elk]

Well NM does show it started here in & around WSMB Near TX & spread to unit 34. Guadalupe,Sacramento Mtns & such. According to NMG&F website.
Now it shows up in Socorro county on USGS map where Wildlife refuges are. No mention of it in Socorro county on NMG&F website. Nor on the Wildlife Refuges.
I am worried about it spreading into the Gila & the elk herds. I have never heard of CWD in elk in NM. Just positive in deer in unit 34...
Not having accurate data is disturbing.
I do not want to see the "so what,no big nevermind" mindset move here either....it is rampant in parts of NM already.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Is there any guarantee that some of these aggressive management strategies would have worked? Of course not. But they’ve worked for other diseases, so it would have been worth a shot early on when we had the option, to at least find out. Unfortunately that train has left the station so we’ll never know.

Has their ever been another prion disease in a wild population, that we have had the opportunity to study and manage? I agree that destroying every cervid in the originally effected area was probably the best course of action, but at this point you would almost need to extirpate, every cervid in North America. Is this statement hyperbolic, probably, but it's gotten to a point were, as you noted, killing specific population segments isn't going to work.

Do we know if cervids shed the prior while they are living, or does this occur only when they die? Are in fact carrion eaters carriers?

It seems prudent to try and reduce the "load" of CWD in the environment, similar the way you would try and fight cancer in a patient. I'm surprised that we haven't seen mandatory, removal of nervous tissue from the field, and/or burial requirements.

 

[ClearCreek]

Hunting Wife:

Your post reminded me of a quote that I read several years ago:

Fish and Wildlife Agencies do less than stellar jobs at managing the public wildlife resources because the public - meaning all of us - doesn't want what's best for the wildlife resources. They want what is best for them, and that is often to the detriment of the wildlife resource.

Anonymous

I am not sure who said it, so I will credit "Anonymous".


ClearCreek

 

[icebreaker12]

One of the majorly frustrating things about peoples opinions of CWD management is everyone wants wildlife agencies doing something. But, when they propose scorched earth methods "oh not that". Given its ability to remain in the soil, this disease isn't going away. But, agencies need to find a way to limit prevalence. I'll support any strategy they propose. I trust they change course if its deemed unsuccessful.

Has their ever been another prion disease in a wild population, that we have had the opportunity to study and manage? I agree that destroying every cervid in the originally effected area was probably the best course of action, but at this point you would almost need to extirpate, every cervid in North America. Is this statement hyperbolic, probably, but it's gotten to a point were, as you noted, killing specific population segments isn't going to work.

Do we know if cervids shed the prior while they are living, or does this occur only when they die? Are in fact carrion eaters carriers?

It seems prudent to try and reduce the "load" of CWD in the environment, similar the way you would try and fight cancer in a patient. I'm surprised that we haven't seen mandatory, removal of nervous tissue from the field, and/or burial requirements.

CWD is actively shed from living CWD positive animals. Its one of the major issues with the disease when you have an animal that's positive and shedding for over a year before it shows signs of the disease.

 

[JM77]

As far as management goes.....Epidemiology would suggest that the only way to slow or stop a pathogen that persists in the environment and remains infective in absence of actual carriers, from continuing to infect animals is to prevent the susceptible population from coming into contact with that contaminated environment. The premise behind this idea isn’t new and is a bedrock principle used to manage all kinds of diseases, all over the world, every day. The only way this differs with CWD compared to other diseases is the time scale. You have to stay the course until the environment is no longer infectious which appears to be in the scale of decades in the case of CWD. This is what some states attempted to do with depopulation zones. However, if people would pause their bitching for a minute to recollect, every time this has been tried, the outrage from hunters has nipped that strategy in the bud very quickly, and thus the states fell back to managing CWD according to the wishes of the hunting population using techniques that really aren’t “managing” anything. It’s mostly passive monitoring and regulations for curbing human transport. And we watch it spread, and hunters get on the interwebs to say “See? That thing the state tried didn’t work. Poor management.” Well duh, of course it didn’t work. It was never given the chance to work. The public doesn’t have the stomach for what it would take to make it work, which is fine -democracy and all. But let’s be realistic about who has dictated the course of management thus far.

Is there any guarantee that some of these aggressive management strategies would have worked? Of course not. But they’ve worked for other diseases, so it would have been worth a shot early on when we had the option, to at least find out. Unfortunately that train has left the station so we’ll never know.

I have tried to keep abreast of this issue being right in the middle of some of the highest CWD incidences in deer near Casper, Wy. Back some time ago, and I'm sure ClearCreek can verify this, researchers at the Sybille Unit in the Laramie Range, made an big effort to rid the facility, or part of it anyway, from CWD. Animals were removed from the penned areas where they readily became infected with the disease. If I remember correctly there was an attempt to sterilize by burning and the pen was left for some number of years before any deer or elk were put back in. The result was that those animals became infected like the previous inhabitants.

What this tells me, is that removing a complete herd from a CWD infected area will most likely do nothing and in the end the new inhabitants(deer and elk) will just carry on the unfortunate tradition of becoming infected with the disease.

I am no fan of reducing or removing animals with the hope it will slow down the spread. That may be too late as seen at Sybille.

 

[N2TRKYS]

I think that State agencies will kill more deer than CWD does in their respective State.

 

[Hunting Wife]

I have tried to keep abreast of this issue being right in the middle of some of the highest CWD incidences in deer near Casper, Wy. Back some time ago, and I'm sure ClearCreek can verify this, researchers at the Sybille Unit in the Laramie Range, made an big effort to rid the facility, or part of it anyway, from CWD. Animals were removed from the penned areas where they readily became infected with the disease. If I remember correctly there was an attempt to sterilize by burning and the pen was left for some number of years before any deer or elk were put back in. The result was that those animals became infected like the previous inhabitants.

What this tells me, is that removing a complete herd from a CWD infected area will most likely do nothing and in the end the new inhabitants(deer and elk) will just carry on the unfortunate tradition of becoming infected with the disease.

I am no fan of reducing or removing animals with the hope it will slow down the spread. That may be too late as seen at Sybille.

You are right. It is most certainly too late for depopulation to work in the current endemic areas. They have already expanded far beyond any reasonable effort to address them through those means. Once CWD takes ground, it doesn’t give it back. Depopulation of that ground changes nothing.

One of the things the agencies tried to do early on when new detections of CWD were discovered in new areas was not necessarily to depopulate the infected area, but to create buffer zones between infected focal areas and the rest of the population: a depopulated buffer to basically insulate healthy animals from contacting infected animals or habitats. Not at all unlike what agencies do to manage pneumonia in bighorns all the time. Interesting to see the difference in perspective the species in question makes....It’s an unpleasant but necessary strategy for sheep (which few people will ever hunt) vs being a ridiculous idea when it impacts a species most people get to hunt every year. This despite a much larger proportion of the overall population being removed in the case of bighorns.

Still, a moot point at this juncture. Hard to make a buffer around something, say, the size of a state or even region of a state.

 

[El Jason]

Given the buffer zone as a strategy, it will be very interesting to see the role scavengers play in the spread of CWD.

 

[timmy]

I’m not sure they realize you can’t make people with private land shoot deer off their place. And they won’t. This is going to be an interesting experiment Montana is going to have. Again that’s not science but it is fact.

 

[wyoelkfan15]

Perhaps BuzzH or JM77 could provide some anecdotal evidence they have seen to the effects of CWD in WY on our ungulate herds. Personally, I haven't observed a massive notable decline in the populations of elk and deer due to the disease. Again, my opinion here, but I have seen bigger drops in the population numbers of elk due to wolves, bad winters and drought more than anything compared to the effects of CWD.

 

[antlerradar]

antlerradar:

You did the same rearranging of letters in describing the ailment that I did when I posted a response on the MM website.

CWD and scarpie in sheep are similar as they are both TSE diseases, see below. There is no treatment for scarpie in sheep.

Scabies in sheep is totally different and there is a treatment for scabies.


Scrapie is a fatal, degenerative disease affecting the central nervous system of sheep and goats. It is among a number of diseases classified as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE).


ClearCreek

Thank you for cleaning up my mistake.

 

[Mtnhunter1]

Hunting Wife,,,, Very well stated.

 

[sbhooper]

Great. Another anti-intellectual. Anyone with an education is suspect, right? And the name-calling right after just to prove that you don't have anything worth sharing, just opinions and vitriol. Do us a favor and let people that actually care enough to do some research and share information use this forum for positive change.

You funny man! Show me your "EXPERT" knowledge to prove me wrong. It is obvious that you consider yourself an "INTELLECTUAL", by your stupid comment. Just for the record, I have nothing against educated people, just educated idiots.