Wyoming Game and Fish Commission Approves Chronic Wasting Disease Management Plan

[TheJason]

Bottom line, I don't think high prevalence is tied to high deer density or at the very least there is a pretty distinct lack of evidence to that in areas of Wyoming. I also don't believe that low deer densities means lower prevalence either, again due to the evidence of that in some other areas of Wyoming.

I agree with this.

It's also worth noting, many of the areas with a higher disease prevalence don't have feeding grounds and such. Hell, even the Sybille Canyon area isn't exactly stacked with deer in the winter from what I recall.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree with this.

It's also worth noting, many of the areas with a higher disease prevalence don't have feeding grounds and such. Hell, even the Sybille Canyon area isn't exactly stacked with deer in the winter from what I recall.

Agreed, and if high densities of animals meant that prevalence would be high...one would think that the elk in the Laramie Range would all either have CWD or be dead by now. Yet, prevalence remains pretty low in elk even though they yard up in huge groups all winter/spring in that area.

So many unknowns and conflicting data, that I'm reluctant to draw many conclusions myself.

 

[seeth07]

Agreed, and if high densities of animals meant that prevalence would be high...one would think that the elk in the Laramie Range would all either have CWD or be dead by now. Yet, prevalence remains pretty low in elk even though they yard up in huge groups all winter/spring in that area.

So many unknowns and conflicting data, that I'm reluctant to draw many conclusions myself.

Ok fair point, maybe densities aren't an indicator of potential peak prevalance. That's an interesting thought that I haven't really considered myself due to the preaching of knocking down deer herds no matter where cwd shows up

 

[Dougfirtree]

UGh. It's so much easier solving problems that have a good solution... CWD really sucks. I'm glad that there's alot of thought and curiosity going into the subject and how to slow this down.

 

[Hunting Wife]

UGh. It's so much easier solving problems that have a good solution... CWD really sucks. I'm glad that there's alot of thought and curiosity going into the subject and how to slow this down.

Unfortunately thought and curiosity don’t get us very far. Hard data are what we need, and it always ends up being prohibitively difficult to get.

 

[8andcounting]

You're right. Wyoming is probably worse in the areas I saw. Every yard along the river looked like this where they were eating the owners plants and drinking out of his bird feeder. CWD fast spreading in that scenario...and we aren't talking about just a few select farms. This was 50 miles of us driving the powder river watching in awe at the amount of mulies along this river. Probably saw 5 to 10 bucks per mile of road or so.

View attachment 152383

I see a couple deer there ... hardly a issue

 

[WyoDoug]

The more I learn about CWD the more I have come to the concussion that CWD is something we are going to have to learn to live with at least for the for see able future.

CWD was first identified as a clinical disease in captive mule deer at the Colorado Division of Wildlife Foothills Wildlife Research Facility in Fort Collins, Colorado in 1967. No cure has been even remotely studied that was effective yet. I think it is going to be around for most of our lifetimes.

 

[Six by five]

I would like to see the captive cervid populations addressed as the cause of CWD.

Once the cause is addressed then action can be taken to mitigate future spread.

For example in Colorado, jurisdiction of captive cervids transitioned from the CPW to the Colorado Department of Agriculture in 1994. This has been detrimental to efforts to control the spread of CWD. An acknowledgement of the source of CWD is needed before a solution can be identified.

Honestly it's amazing to me that seasons can be extended and more animals can be taken in an effort to limit the spread of CWD without first identifying the source and trying to solve the problem at that level. Since captive cervids negatively affect wild populations is this something the US Fish and Wildlife should be more involved in?

 

[wytex]

I agree with this.

It's also worth noting, many of the areas with a higher disease prevalence don't have feeding grounds and such. Hell, even the Sybille Canyon area isn't exactly stacked with deer in the winter from what I recall.

Only the whitetail move out of Sybille Canyon, lots of deer stay on the private all winter long. We feed horses all winter, deer are around all winter, mulies anyway.

 

[wyoboypt]

I think it’s a real moronic method of turning already poor hunting to crap. And I believe that’s the ONLY thing it will accomplish.

 

[BrokenChicken]

CO multi year study shows that Hunting pressure and reduction in older deer do in fact help cut CWD down

Hunting Helps Suppress Chronic Wasting Disease - Colorado Outdoors Online

Applying sufficient hunting pressure may be the key to managing chronic wasting disease in mule deer, especially early in outbreaks.

coloradooutdoorsmag.com

 

[Bux_N_Beards]

Having followed the WY plans on this topic for some time, i appreciate the input on this discussion, particularly from those in the area with a “boots on the ground perspective“.

We recently discovered CWD in my local area of West TN two years ago, and to see the changes that have occurred to deer hunting as I’ve known it for the past 30+ years has been disappointing at best. You’d have to understand the core region of where the disease was first located to fully appreciate the situation, but there are some similarities to the situations described in this thread in regard to private landowners and their views in regard to attempts to manage the disease. For one, what is now often referred to as the core area of the disease is made up of several large (for this area) tracts of tightly controlled private properties, many of which have been practicing quality deer management programs for many years. Access is tightly restricted, buck harvest on these larger managed properties is limited predominantly to mature (3.5+ yo) deer, and despite an antlerless daily bag limit for the last ~15 years of 3 per day (yes you read that right), the population is, at least most areas, still fairly robust.

I view it as the prefect storm for the disease given the high deer density of the region and the older age structure of the buck population as a whole. As such, prevalence from an 18K acre QDM managed club in this area was reported to be north of 70% on 3.5 yo+ bucks this past season, mind you on a place that only takes roughly two dozen or so bucks a year. As such, the TWRA feels the disease has been here a decade or more.

While WY has been dealing with CWD much longer, TN is still somewhat in the shock and awe stage, and is evaluating different options for attempting to deal with the disease. Last fall was the first full season after its discovery and the harvest dropped dramatically in this area. For starters, a lot of people quit hunting, some processors closed, and those that did hunt simply practiced more trigger restraint from not wanting to deal with the potential of harvesting a diseased animal - which in this core area was a very likely possibility. As a result, many feel we are on the verge of a population explosion if this trend continues, and are then left to find out what a high population density PLUS a high disease prevalence looks like down the road.

They are encouraging a higher buck harvest here as well, have loosened restrictions for certain seasons, and are offering bonus and replacement buck tags if you kill a positive animal. But with extremely liberally limits for the last 15 years, the argument of “we need to kill more deer to slow the spread” just isn’t getting any traction. Throw in the fact that there is very little public land in this area, almost the polar opposite of Wyoming, and it’s easy to see that the landowners and those that hunt those private lands will ultimately influence what happens next.

I don’t at all disagree with the comments on mule deer in the West and Whitetails back East being completely different situations. That said, I am keenly interested to see if Wyoming’s efforts gain traction, can work through some of the noted challenges, and have enough time to get some real scientific data. As Hunting Wife said earlier, it may be too little too late. Meanwhile, we may be doing our own, inadvertent experiment here locally.

All this as I continue to build points in WY..........

 

[BuzzH]

CO multi year study shows that Hunting pressure and reduction in older deer do in fact help cut CWD down

Hunting Helps Suppress Chronic Wasting Disease - Colorado Outdoors Online

Applying sufficient hunting pressure may be the key to managing chronic wasting disease in mule deer, especially early in outbreaks.

coloradooutdoorsmag.com

That's all fine and dandy, but here's a couple questions.

1. We're seeing a "leveling off" of cwd prevalence in areas of Wyoming where we haven't changed management at all.
2. What happens long term, do we just have to "settle" for fewer deer into perpetuity and getting used to shooting 1.5-2.5 year old bucks in high pressure areas? How does this impact over-all herd health by having a heavily skewed buck population toward younger deer?
3. What happens when the CPW wants to start managing for higher buck to doe ratio's, older age classes, or higher over-all populations again? Does prevalence just bounce right back up again?

I'm still pretty skeptical that this is any sort of proper long term strategy. It may buy you time while looking for other ways to manage CWD, but in the interim its not at all positive for the long term outlook on mule deer populations in the West. It may also, as the article states, be a way to slow the spread in emerging areas...but long term, I have my doubts.

Like others have stated, I think that CWD may be something we, and the wildlife, may just have to live with.

 

[Hunt West]

All they need to do is go study the rise of infection and prevalence rates in Montana. Those poor bastards get the reset switch hit every year in November....

 

[antlerradar]

From what I understand there are two theories on to the origin of CWD. It could have originated in a CO lab or it could have been here a long time. I am not scientist enough to make a rock solid call on which of the two is most likely. I lean towards the been around a long time. If it has been around a long time and we could not eliminate CWD with the market hunting of the late 1800's/early 1900's the measures taken by game departments today are going to have a very limited effect.

 

[Carl 9.3x62]

CO multi year study shows that Hunting pressure and reduction in older deer do in fact help cut CWD down

Hunting Helps Suppress Chronic Wasting Disease - Colorado Outdoors Online

Applying sufficient hunting pressure may be the key to managing chronic wasting disease in mule deer, especially early in outbreaks.

coloradooutdoorsmag.com

Nothing to do with CWD, but that is an awesome buck in that article!

 

[Bux_N_Beards]

That's all fine and dandy, but here's a couple questions.

1. We're seeing a "leveling off" of cwd prevalence in areas of Wyoming where we haven't changed management at all.
2. What happens long term, do we just have to "settle" for fewer deer into perpetuity and getting used to shooting 1.5-2.5 year old bucks in high pressure areas? How does this impact over-all herd health by having a heavily skewed buck population toward younger deer?
3. What happens when the CPW wants to start managing for higher buck to doe ratio's, older age classes, or higher over-all populations again? Does prevalence just bounce right back up again?

I'm still pretty skeptical that this is any sort of proper long term strategy. It may buy you time while looking for other ways to manage CWD, but in the interim its not at all positive for the long term outlook on mule deer populations in the West. It may also, as the article states, be a way to slow the spread in emerging areas...but long term, I have my doubts.

Like others have stated, I think that CWD may be something we, and the wildlife, may just have to live with.

Buzz

Your first point is of a lot of interest to me in particular. When you reference the leveling off, I’d be curious to know what that prevalence looks like in these areas, also for bucks vs. does. I’d assume it varies by herd, but curious either way.

I have heard of one property in particular that is in the “core” of the area I described in my post above where every deer they harvested last season was positive. It’s certainly concerning when we‘re seeing prevalence rates higher than the endemic areas in the West, or even with the Whitetails in places like Wisconsin. Especially with it just being picked up by the state less than two years ago. Point being, even we level off at current prevalence, the proverbial horse is already out of the barn in my locale.

 

[Hunting Wife]

That's all fine and dandy, but here's a couple questions.

1. We're seeing a "leveling off" of cwd prevalence in areas of Wyoming where we haven't changed management at all.
2. What happens long term, do we just have to "settle" for fewer deer into perpetuity and getting used to shooting 1.5-2.5 year old bucks in high pressure areas? How does this impact over-all herd health by having a heavily skewed buck population toward younger deer?
3. What happens when the CPW wants to start managing for higher buck to doe ratio's, older age classes, or higher over-all populations again? Does prevalence just bounce right back up again?

I'm still pretty skeptical that this is any sort of proper long term strategy. It may buy you time while looking for other ways to manage CWD, but in the interim its not at all positive for the long term outlook on mule deer populations in the West. It may also, as the article states, be a way to slow the spread in emerging areas...but long term, I have my doubts.

Like others have stated, I think that CWD may be something we, and the wildlife, may just have to live with.

I admire your passion and engagement @BuzzH. You ask great questions that I wish we had the data to answer. I just feel like we’ve been watching this thing get worse but done nothing really for the last couple decades, and my fear is we’ll still be sitting in the exact same place knowledge-wise 20 years from now, having the same debates, only with fewer deer.

I understand the trepidation. I love mule deer. They are my favorite big game animal. I want to keep them around, and have healthy, abundant populations. But I feel like doing nothing hasn’t exactly been a big success, and it concerns me that there are so many other things pressuring mule deer that CWD could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

I’m curious on your perspective on some things because of your engagement in the process and I know you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. Specifically:

1. Is it this plan in general that you have reservations about, or more the details of how it would be implemented?

2. Are there sideboards that would alleviate some of those concerns, or at least get you to something you could live with? For example, there’s no way in hell I would be on board with doing this statewide and even small scale I would want some highly selective criteria to make sure units chosen would provide the best data possible.

3. Are there any deal-breakers in the plan right now for you?

4. If we learned what doesn’t work for CWD management, would you consider that valuable?

 

[BuzzH]

I admire your passion and engagement @BuzzH. You ask great questions that I wish we had the data to answer. I just feel like we’ve been watching this thing get worse but done nothing really for the last couple decades, and my fear is we’ll still be sitting in the exact same place knowledge-wise 20 years from now, having the same debates, only with fewer deer.

I understand the trepidation. I love mule deer. They are my favorite big game animal. I want to keep them around, and have healthy, abundant populations. But I feel like doing nothing hasn’t exactly been a big success, and it concerns me that there are so many other things pressuring mule deer that CWD could be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel’s back.

I’m curious on your perspective on some things because of your engagement in the process and I know you’ve spent a lot of time thinking about this. Specifically:

1. Is it this plan in general that you have reservations about, or more the details of how it would be implemented?

2. Are there sideboards that would alleviate some of those concerns, or at least get you to something you could live with? For example, there’s no way in hell I would be on board with doing this statewide and even small scale I would want some highly selective criteria to make sure units chosen would provide the best data possible.

3. Are there any deal-breakers in the plan right now for you?

4. If we learned what doesn’t work for CWD management, would you consider that valuable?

Good questions.

1. Yes, there is some reservations that I have on this particular plan and I think the way it was rolled out to the public was a bit off-putting, at least to me. For whatever reason, the WGF puts a lot of faith in the Ruckleshaus institute for "interest based Collaboration". I also agree with the IBC process myself, use it quite a bit in my day job, but I just think that their definition and mine are somewhat different. The way I use and understand interest based collaboration is that everything is on the table for possible solutions, etc. That's also what Jessica Western, the mediator from Ruchelshaus also told everyone at the CWD meeting in Laramie. The problem is, that toward the end of the "collaboration", without even seriously considering any of the other options, they showed a slide that basically outlined an action plane of 1. "Kill more bucks", 2."Kill more deer over-all using hunters" 3. "kill more deer using government hunters". Those were the 3 options, nothing considered about the 1.5 hours of "collaboration" we just did, and Jessica is even quoted in this release as saying "the public wont tolerate doing nothing". Well, in my experience, I don't call a list of 3 pre-determined decisions on what the GF and Ruckelshaus institute/Jessica Western wants as "interest based collaboration". That's simply rolling out a plan and telling the public we're going to kill deer to manage cwd and you're going to like it. I voiced my concerns and asked some of the same questions I've stated here...to which there were really no answers other than "we have to try something".

2. As of right now, there are no sideboards and yes that's one of the big problems I have with this plan. I'm not unreasonable and I do support trying some type of management in specific areas under a tightly controlled, science based approach. What we've been told, is that we can hammer out the details during the public process and to date, I've seen nothing of the where, how, when or anything else. Troubling to me. What I've discussed with a few of the local biologists is to leave the Laramie Range alone as a control set, if you will, and don't change from current management. My reasoning is that because this area has had CWD the longest, is pretty high prevalence, and appears to be leveling off or even declining in prevalence, it would make sense to use it as the "do nothing" approach. Cant really do that in areas where cwd has been just discovered in, and if the theory is true that reduction in bucks and over-all populations will slow the spread, best to do it where cwd is emerging, not where its been around since the 1960's. Also, I think that prior to making any management changes, the areas being considered should have a base-line of known prevalence BEFORE implementing management. Intuitively obvious that there is a need to know what the prevalence is now, if you're trying to determine if you're management practices are actually working by killing the hell out of deer/bucks. I also believe this can only be done in areas where the GF can tightly control harvest, make testing mandatory (no exceptions), and where cwd is an emerging problem. That pretty much leaves some of the best LQ areas in the state. Trying to implement the killing off of deer in general areas is next to impossible to control and mandatory testing is about impossible as well, because you don't know who's hunting where. With LQ areas, you have the list of all the hunters with tags. You can also manage buck to doe ratio's and over-all populations easier via hunting.

3. Yes, there are deal breakers, moving too fast and implementing before proper baselines have been established on prevalence. I also don't want this to turn into an excuse for biologists to just say the hell with mule deer, lets just start managing the entire state this way. Its too easy sometimes to take preliminary, short term data, call it a success, declare victory and move to manage the whole state for "consistency". Its already happened on this thread with the often quoted Colorado study. I also wonder if Wyoming shouldn't consider looking at about any area in Montana that currently has cwd (relatively lately in comparison to Wyoming) and how cwd is going to spread under Montana's current management. In other words, Montana is already doing what Wyoming is WANTING to do, hunt deer late, keep the buck age classes low, over-all deer numbers low etc. Use that data, in compliment to what you're going to do in a handful of select areas in Wyoming. No need to reinvent the wheel, as it were.

4. Absolutely and that's precisely why I'm supportive of a limited number of areas giving this a try. But, what I'm not comfortable with is killing the hell out of a lot of mule deer all over the state, and finding out in 10 years, "well, shit, that didn't work". The ramifications of this type of management practice, really killing off a lot of deer, in particular mule deer, could damn near take mule deer hunting for any type of quality buck away from an entire generation of hunters. The timelines I'm seeing thrown around are a minimum of 10 years, and probably longer. Then you're probably talking a minimum of another 10 years, at least, to try to recover what you killed off. That's why I was so adamant about the difference between whitetail and mule deer and what we "try" to implement to control cwd. Whitetails can handle a lot more pressure and we still have some level of buck quality...3.5-4.5 year old whitetails can have some pretty impressive antlers...mule deer, not so much at that age. Same with increasing over-all populations, a few years of less pressure on whitetails, you're back in the game. Mule deer?...yeah, not so much.

To wrap a bow around the whole thing, I'm not opposed, at all of giving this a try...but it has to be measure twice, cut once.

Apologies for the long post...

 

[Hunting Wife]

Good questions.

1. Yes, there is some reservations that I have on this particular plan and I think the way it was rolled out to the public was a bit off-putting, at least to me. For whatever reason, the WGF puts a lot of faith in the Ruckleshaus institute for "interest based Collaboration". I also agree with the IBC process myself, use it quite a bit in my day job, but I just think that their definition and mine are somewhat different. The way I use and understand interest based collaboration is that everything is on the table for possible solutions, etc. That's also what Jessica Western, the mediator from Ruchelshaus also told everyone at the CWD meeting in Laramie. The problem is, that toward the end of the "collaboration", without even seriously considering any of the other options, they showed a slide that basically outlined an action plane of 1. "Kill more bucks", 2."Kill more deer over-all using hunters" 3. "kill more deer using government hunters". Those were the 3 options, nothing considered about the 1.5 hours of "collaboration" we just did, and Jessica is even quoted in this release as saying "the public wont tolerate doing nothing". Well, in my experience, I don't call a list of 3 pre-determined decisions on what the GF and Ruckelshaus institute/Jessica Western wants as "interest based collaboration". That's simply rolling out a plan and telling the public we're going to kill deer to manage cwd and you're going to like it. I voiced my concerns and asked some of the same questions I've stated here...to which there were really no answers other than "we have to try something".

2. As of right now, there are no sideboards and yes that's one of the big problems I have with this plan. I'm not unreasonable and I do support trying some type of management in specific areas under a tightly controlled, science based approach. What we've been told, is that we can hammer out the details during the public process and to date, I've seen nothing of the where, how, when or anything else. Troubling to me. What I've discussed with a few of the local biologists is to leave the Laramie Range alone as a control set, if you will, and don't change from current management. My reasoning is that because this area has had CWD the longest, is pretty high prevalence, and appears to be leveling off or even declining in prevalence, it would make sense to use it as the "do nothing" approach. Cant really do that in areas where cwd has been just discovered in, and if the theory is true that reduction in bucks and over-all populations will slow the spread, best to do it where cwd is emerging, not where its been around since the 1960's. Also, I think that prior to making any management changes, the areas being considered should have a base-line of known prevalence BEFORE implementing management. Intuitively obvious that there is a need to know what the prevalence is now, if you're trying to determine if you're management practices are actually working by killing the hell out of deer/bucks. I also believe this can only be done in areas where the GF can tightly control harvest, make testing mandatory (no exceptions), and where cwd is an emerging problem. That pretty much leaves some of the best LQ areas in the state. Trying to implement the killing off of deer in general areas is next to impossible to control and mandatory testing is about impossible as well, because you don't know who's hunting where. With LQ areas, you have the list of all the hunters with tags. You can also manage buck to doe ratio's and over-all populations easier via hunting.

3. Yes, there are deal breakers, moving too fast and implementing before proper baselines have been established on prevalence. I also don't want this to turn into an excuse for biologists to just say the hell with mule deer, lets just start managing the entire state this way. Its too easy sometimes to take preliminary, short term data, call it a success, declare victory and move to manage the whole state for "consistency". Its already happened on this thread with the often quoted Colorado study. I also wonder if Wyoming shouldn't consider looking at about any area in Montana that currently has cwd (relatively lately in comparison to Wyoming) and how cwd is going to spread under Montana's current management. In other words, Montana is already doing what Wyoming is WANTING to do, hunt deer late, keep the buck age classes low, over-all deer numbers low etc. Use that data, in compliment to what you're going to do in a handful of select areas in Wyoming. No need to reinvent the wheel, as it were.

4. Absolutely and that's precisely why I'm supportive of a limited number of areas giving this a try. But, what I'm not comfortable with is killing the hell out of a lot of mule deer all over the state, and finding out in 10 years, "well, shit, that didn't work". The ramifications of this type of management practice, really killing off a lot of deer, in particular mule deer, could damn near take mule deer hunting for any type of quality buck away from an entire generation of hunters. The timelines I'm seeing thrown around are a minimum of 10 years, and probably longer. Then you're probably talking a minimum of another 10 years, at least, to try to recover what you killed off. That's why I was so adamant about the difference between whitetail and mule deer and what we "try" to implement to control cwd. Whitetails can handle a lot more pressure and we still have some level of buck quality...3.5-4.5 year old whitetails can have some pretty impressive antlers...mule deer, not so much at that age. Same with increasing over-all populations, a few years of less pressure on whitetails, you're back in the game. Mule deer?...yeah, not so much.

To wrap a bow around the whole thing, I'm not opposed, at all of giving this a try...but it has to be measure twice, cut once.

Apologies for the long post...

Thanks @BuzzH. That provides a better picture. I'm not involved in this stuff as much as I used to be, but I'm always curious how things are working (or not working) in other states and hearing educated perspectives is valuable to me.

1. Interesting and I guess not shocking. We go all in on these structured decision making models, but somehow the implementation seems to get pretty fuzzy when it comes to these big collaborations. I can see the frustration there.

2. Makes sense, and after seeing how things went in the point above, I would be suspicious too. I can’t fault your logic here.

3. Agree. Makes me think of how shoulder seasons went down. When I think of needing to try something new with regards to CWD, I include in that better research collaboration between states. I think in large part politics and tribalism has made it nearly impossible for state agencies to collaborate on these types of big issues today. I agree that there is a lot of potential, particularly with Montana and Wyoming, to work inter-state where there are units with enough similarities to be able to draw meaningful conclusions. Sure, Wyoming could take Montana's publicly available data and do some analyses and try to extrapolate but it would be much more rigorous if they could just work together to dovetail their efforts so the data collected were designed to be comparable in the first place. I'm not sure in this day and age how much political goodwill exists to let an actual collaboration happen.

4. 10 years at a minimum is what I think it would take to start seeing some actual movement on prevalence and demographics, and I agree that mule deer are a much trickier subject with regards to CWD than whitetails. Measure twice, cut once is right. What would be rather tragic to me would be getting 6, 7, 8 years into this and then losing our nerve and throwing it all away. At that point, we've wasted money, time, resources, and a lot of animals for nothing. Even best case scenario, I think we've seen from other states that it's going to take nerves of steel on everyone's part if anything useful or at least enlightening is to come of it.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion. I hope the process in Wyoming results in something workable and useful.