Friday, June 01, 2012

TEXAS DEER CZAR TO WISCONSIN ASK TO EXPLAIN COMMENTS


Deer expert asked to explain comments


15 hours ago • By RON SEELY Capital Newspapers


Appointed by Gov. Scott Walker as the result of a campaign promise, Texas deer biologist James Kroll, right, is shown with Walker at a meeting with hunters in North Bristol.


Enlarge Photo


Democratic legislators Thursday asked for a public hearing at which the Texas expert hired by Gov. Scott Walker to analyze state deer management can answer questions about his work and explain past comments he made that seemed to favor private hunting preserves over public lands.

The legislators, minority members of the Senate and Assembly natural resource committees, said comments by James Kroll, who was hired last year and is being paid $125,000 to conduct his study, run counter to the history of hunting and public lands in Wisconsin.

“Privatizing hunting is not in keeping with our state’s heritage and tradition,” said State Rep. Fred Clark, D-Baraboo. “If this is what Dr. Kroll believes, hunters — and all people of Wisconsin — deserve to know.”

Kroll, whose final report is due at the end of June, has called the criticisms politically motivated, “presumably to aid in successfully removing Gov.Walker.

“Since I am not politically motivated, did not vote for Gov. Walker, will not be able to vote in the upcoming election, and am neither a Democrat nor Republican, I am concerned and saddened by things being said about me and my positions and values related to white-tailed deer,” Kroll said in a statement last week.

In his preliminary report, Kroll was very critical of the DNR for not listening to hunters and using bad science to estimate deer populations.

He also said DNR biologists have not done enough to work with private landowners and, during public meetings on the initial report, recommended that the agency should put more resources into encouraging management of deer on private lands.

“Quite candidly,” Clark said, “the conclusions raise some serious questions about what he will recommend.”

Kroll was also criticized by legislators at Thursday’s press conference for widely-circulated comments that were attributed to him in a 2002 article on Texas game farms in “Texas Monthly” magazine.

“People who call for more public lands are cocktail conservationists who are really pining for socialism,” Kroll was quoted as saying in the article. He also called national parks “wildlife ghettos” and accused the government of gross mismanagement of game animals.

While he did not return a phone call Thursday, Kroll responded to the criticisms in a statement he released last week.

Kroll said his comment about “cocktail conservationists” was aimed at “well-meaning, wealthy individuals who support establishing a park, kicking the native peoples off their land and then go home thinking they have done something great.” He said he used the phrase “wildlife ghettos” to describe poorly managed public lands.

“The unhappiness with the way whitetails have been managed in Wisconsin came from the false idea that government always knows best, especially when they have a computer program,” Kroll said.




http://www.wiscnews.com/news/local/article_8d9b90f8-aba5-11e1-a040-001a4bcf887a.html?comment_form=true





Dr. Deer Wisconsin Report: Will High-Fence Bias Skew Final Plan?




Categories: Blogs, Daniel Schmidt's Whitetail Wisdom, Deer News, Featured Tags: , , , , , , , ,
According to Wisconsin’s White-Tailed Deer Trustee Dr. James Kroll, people who call for more public hunting opportunities are “pining for socialism.” He further states, “(Public) Game management is the last bastion of communism.”





OPINION BLOG



These are just two insights into the man who has been asked to provide analysis and recommended changes to Wisconsin’s deer management program. Kroll’s insights are from an article entitled “Which Side of the Fence Are You On?” by Joe Nick Patoski for a past edition of Texas Monthly.
If nothing more, the article gives an unabashed look into the mind-set that will be providing the Wisconsin DNR with recommendations on how to change their deer management practices. James Kroll (also known as “Deer Dr.”) was appointed to the Wisconsin “deer czar” position last fall. He was hired by the Department of Administration and instructed to complete a review of the state’s deer management program.



Here’s a sample of the article:



“Game Management,” says James Kroll, driving to his high-fenced, two-hundred-acre spread near Nacogdoches, “is the last bastion of communism.” Kroll, also known as Dr. Deer, is the director of the Forestry Resources Institute of Texas at Stephen F. Austin State University, and the “management” he is referring to is the sort practiced by the State of Texas. The 55-year-old Kroll is the leading light in the field of private deer management as a means to add value to the land. His belief is so absolute that some detractors refer to him as Dr. Dough, implying that his eye is on the bottom line more than on the natural world.



Kroll, who has been the foremost proponent of deer ranching in Texas for more than thirty years, doesn’t mind the controversy and certainly doesn’t fade in the heat. People who call for more public lands are “cocktail conservationists,” he says, who are really pining for socialism. He calls national parks “wildlife ghettos” and flatly accuses the government of gross mismanagement. He argues that his relatively tiny acreage, marked by eight-foot fences and posted signs warning off would-be poachers, is a better model for keeping what’s natural natural while making money off the land.
A trip to South Africa six years ago convinced Kroll that he was on the right track. There he encountered areas of primitive, lush wildlife-rich habitats called game ranches. They were privately owned, privately managed, and enclosed by high fences. He noticed how most of the land outside those fences had been grazed to the nub, used up. “Game ranches there derive their income from these animals — viewing them, hunting them, selling their meat,” he says. “There are no losers.” At his own ranch Kroll has set up a smaller version of the same thing. His land is indeed lush, verdant, with pine groves, an abundance of undergrowth, wild orchids, New Jersey tea, jack-in-the-pulpits, and other native plants. He has also set up a full-scale breeding research center and is one of twenty Texas deer breeders using artificial insemination to improve his herd. “We balance sex and age ratio,” he says. “We manage habitat. We control the population and manage for hunting. I want to leave the deer herd better than it was before we came.”
It is interesting to note that, in 2001, the State of Texas shifted its deer management strategies toward the same leanings that Kroll has suggested for Wisconsin. In Texas, the change was brought about via heavy lobbying from the high-fence deer ranching industry. This pressure helped convince the Texas Parks and Wildlife to change their regulations and allow private landowners to select the own deer biologists.



“That has given landowners more freedom,” Kroll told Texas Monthly. “(However,) You still have to let the state on your land to get a wildlife-management permit.”
The key difference here is that 98 percent of Texas is comprised of private land.
Wisconsin, on the other hand, consists of approximately 34.8 million acres of land, and 25.5 percent of the state’s 638,000 gun-hunters reported hunting on public land at some point during the season (2010, Duey, Rees).



According to the Wisconsin Realtors Association, more than 5.7 million acres of this land, or 16.5 percent, is publicly owned and used for parks, forests, trails, and natural resource protection. [Note: these statistics do not include the public land used for roads, government buildings, military bases, and college/school campuses.] This 5.7 million acres of public land is owned as follows:
Federal government owns approximately 1.5 million acres (4.4 percent of the state’s land area). Almost all of the federal forestland in Wisconsin is located in Chequamegon-Nicolet National Forest.
State government owns approximately 1.6 million acres (4.6 percent of the state’s land area). The land is managed by two agencies, the Board of Commissioners of Public Land (who manages lands granted by federal government) and the DNR (managing land owned by the state).
County government owns approximately 2.6 million acres (7.5 percent of the state’s land area).
Public land is located in 71 of Wisconsin’s 72 counties, with the most public land located in Bayfield County (464,673 acres). [Note: Menominee County does not have any public land, but 98 percent of the land is held in trust by the Menominee Tribe.] Twenty counties have more than 100,000 acres of public land, while only 12 counties have fewer than 10,000 acres.
What does this all mean? My initial reaction, which is one that I predicted when Kroll was named to the state’s deer trustee position, is that his team’s final recommendations — if implemented — will be heavily skewed toward the state’s larger landowners (500+ acres) and folks who own small parcels in areas comprised mostly of private land.
It is also my prediction that the final recommendations (again, if implemented) will do little, if anything, to improve deer herds and deer hunting on Wisconsin’s 5.7 million acres of public land.
Where does this leave the public-land hunter? “It will suck to be you,” said one deer manager who asked to remain anonymous out of fear for his job. “The resources and efforts will go toward improving the private land sector. This is all about turning deer hunting away from the Public Land Doctrine and more toward a European-style of management — like they have in Texas.”
I do, of course, hope these assumptions are wrong. As with all things in life, we should maintain an open mind to change. Life is all about change. However, change for the sake of change is usually a recipe for disaster. Especially when that change is driven by something more than a sincere desire to manage public resources for the greater good.
As noted yesterday (Dr. James Kroll Report: Is That All You Get For Your Money), I will provide more of my opinions and interpretation on this important issue in forthcoming installments of this blog. Read his full preliminary report here.
 
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/which-side-fence-are-you
 
http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2002-02-01/feature5

 
http://www.deeranddeerhunting.com/deer-news/dr-deer-wisconsin-report-will-high-fence-hunting-bias-skew-final-plan

 







“Game Management,” says James Kroll, driving to his high-fenced, two-hundred-acre spread near Nacogdoches, “is the last bastion of communism.” Kroll, also known as Dr. Deer, is the director of the Forestry Resources Institute of Texas at Stephen F. Austin State University, and the “management” he is referring to is the sort practiced by the State of Texas. The 55-year-old Kroll is the leading light in the field of private deer management as a means to add value to the land. His belief is so absolute that some detractors refer to him as Dr. Dough, implying that his eye is on the bottom line more than on the natural world.






Kroll, who has been the foremost proponent of deer ranching in Texas for more than thirty years, doesn’t mind the controversy and certainly doesn’t fade in the heat. People who call for more public lands are “cocktail conservationists,” he says, who are really pining for socialism. He calls national parks “wildlife ghettos” and flatly accuses the government of gross mismanagement. He argues that his relatively tiny acreage, marked by eight-foot fences and posted signs warning off would-be poachers, is a better model for keeping what’s natural natural while making money off the land.









http://www.texasmonthly.com/preview/2002-02-01/feature5





Where does this leave the public-land hunter? “It will suck to be you,” said one deer manager who asked to remain anonymous out of fear for his job. “The resources and efforts will go toward improving the private land sector. This is all about turning deer hunting away from the Public Land Doctrine and more toward a European-style of management — like they have in Texas.”







Thursday, March 29, 2012

TEXAS DEER CZAR SAYS WISCONSIN DNR NOT DOING ENOUGH ABOUT CWD LIKE POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK


http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2012/03/texas-deer-czar-says-wisconsin-dnr-not.html




Monday, March 26, 2012

Texas Prepares for Chronic Wasting Disease CWD Possibility in Far West Texas


http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2012/03/texas-prepares-for-chronic-wasting.html




Monday, March 26, 2012

3 CASES OF CWD FOUND NEW MEXICO MULE DEER SEVERAL MILS FROM TEXAS BORDER

http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2012/03/3-cases-of-cwd-found-new-mexico-mule.html




Thursday, May 31, 2012

CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE CWD PRION2012 Aerosol, Inhalation transmission, Scrapie, cats, species barrier, burial, and more

http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2012/05/chronic-wasting-disease-cwd-prion2012.html




Sunday, January 22, 2012

Chronic Wasting Disease CWD cervids interspecies transmission

http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2012/01/chronic-wasting-disease-cwd-cervids.html





*** Chronic Wasting Disease CWD CDC REPORT MARCH 2012 ***


Saturday, February 18, 2012

Occurrence, Transmission, and Zoonotic Potential of Chronic Wasting Disease

CDC Volume 18, Number 3—March 2012

CWD has been identified in free-ranging cervids in 15 US states and 2 Canadian provinces and in ≈ 100 captive herds in 15 states and provinces and in South Korea (Figure 1, panel B).

SNIP...

Long-term effects of CWD on cervid populations and ecosystems remain unclear as the disease continues to spread and prevalence increases. In captive herds, CWD might persist at high levels and lead to complete herd destruction in the absence of human culling. Epidemiologic modeling suggests the disease could have severe effects on free-ranging deer populations, depending on hunting policies and environmental persistence (8,9). CWD has been associated with large decreases in free-ranging mule deer populations in an area of high CWD prevalence (Boulder, Colorado, USA) (5).


PLEASE STUDY THIS MAP, COMPARE FARMED CWD TO WILD CWD...TSS


http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/3/11-0685-f1.htm





Saturday, February 18, 2012

Occurrence, Transmission, and Zoonotic Potential of Chronic Wasting Disease

CDC Volume 18, Number 3—March 2012


http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/18/3/11-0685_article.htm





Thursday, February 09, 2012

50 GAME FARMS IN USA INFECTED WITH CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE

http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2012/02/50-game-farms-to-date-in-usa-infected.html





For example, one elk in a presumed newly infected herd was more than 15 years old. It is not known when during the course of infection an animal may be infectious. In one study, more than 90% of mule deer residing on a premises for more than 2 years died or were euthanized due to CWD) (Williams and Young 1980). Chronic wasting disease was the primary cause of adult mortality [5 (7 1%) of 7 and 4 (23%) of 23] in two captive elk herds (Miller et al. 1998).


http://www.nwhc.usgs.gov/disease_information/chronic_wasting_disease/frequently_asked_questions.jsp




The maximum disease course is not known, but can exceed 25 months in experimentally infected deer and 34 months in elk. Duration is less certain in naturally occurring cases. The youngest animal diagnosed with clinical CWD was 17 months old, suggesting 16 to 17 months may be the minimum natural incubation period. Among deer and elk residing in facilities with a long history of CWD, most natural cases occur in 2- to 7-year-old animals; however, deer have lived more than 7 years in heavily infected facilities without succumbing to CWD, and elk more than 15 years of age have succumbed to CWD.


http://www.vet.uga.edu/scwds/briefs/0402brief.pdf




"Clinical signs include loss of body condition, behavioral changes, excessive drinking and urinating, excessive salivation, and occasionally, incoordination and tremors. Affected animals have varied in age from 17 months to greater than 15 years of age.


http://www.mad-cow.org/99feb_cwd_special.html






Approximately 4,200 fawns, defined as deer under 1 year of age, were sampled from the eradication zone over the last year. The majority of fawns sampled were between the ages of 5 to 9 months, though some were as young as 1 month. Two of the six fawns with CWD detected were 5 to 6 months old. All six of the positive fawns were taken from the core area of the CWD eradication zone where the highest numbers of positive deer have been identified.


http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/news.detail/ID/a4b4e5e8749d729af242e253ac742084





> > > Two of the six fawns with CWD detected were 5 to 6 months old. < < <


Chronic Wasting Disease in a Wisconsin White-Tailed Deer Farm



and 15 of 22 fawns aged 6 to 9 months (68.2%) were positive.



http://vdi.sagepub.com/content/20/5/698.full





http://ddr.nal.usda.gov/bitstream/10113/21380/1/IND44108272.pdf





specific susceptibility? 194. It is probable, based on age-class specific prevalence data from wild cervids and epidemiological evidence from captive cervids in affected research centres, that both adults and fawns may become infected with CWD (Miller, Wild & Williams, 1998; Miller et al., 2000).



198. In Odocoileus virginianus – white tailed deer, out of 179 white-tailed deer which had become enclosed by an elk farm fence, in Sioux County, northwestern Nebraska, four fawns only eight months old were among the 50% of CWD-positive animals; these fawns were not showing any clinical signs of CWD (Davidson, 2002).



http://wildpro.twycrosszoo.org/s/00ref/miscellaneouscontents/D161_CWDReview_Seac/08_Susceptibility_Nat_Hosts.htm





SCWDS BRIEFS



Volume 17 January 2002 Number 4



CWD News from Nebraska and Kansas



Infection with the chronic wasting disease (CWD) agent recently was found in 28 of 58 formerly wild white-tailed deer in a high-fenced enclosure adjacent to a pen containing CWDaffected captive elk in northern Sioux County, Nebraska.



Four of the positive deer were fawns approximately 8 months old, which is unusually young for animals testing positive for CWD.





http://scwds.uga.edu/briefs/0102brief.pdf





http://scwds.uga.edu/topic_index/2002/CWDNewsfromNebraskaandKansas.pdf





CWD in adult deer and fawns



A hundred and thirty-three white-tailed deer in the study were killed after CWD was diagnosed in the deer within the fenced area. Paired samples of formalin-fixed tissue for CWD diagnosis and frozen tissue for DNA sequence analysis were collected. Fifty per cent (67/133) of deer were diagnosed with CWD (Table 2) using an immunohistochemical assay for PrPd in formalin-fixed, paraffinembedded brain and lymphoid tissues.



Five of the CWD-positive deer were fawns, less than 1 year of age.



Early CWD (PrPd detected in the tonsil or retropharyngeal node but not brain) was diagnosed in 14 deer (12 adults ranging from 1?5 to more than 5 years of age and two fawns). Late CWD (PrPd detectable in brain as well as lymphoid tissues) was diagnosed in 53 deer (50 adults ranging in age from 1?5 to 7 years of age and three fawns). None of the CWD-positive deer showed clinical signs of the disease (weight loss, hypersalivation, disorientation) or gross changes consistent with CWD (serous atrophy of fat) at necropsy.



http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1125&context=zoonoticspub





Illinois CWD, see where there 2003 sampling showed 2. % of fawns tested had CWD i.e. 1 positive out of 51 samples.



2003



Boone-Winnebago Unit Fawn 51 1 2.0%



http://dnr.state.il.us/cwd/Sampling_Summary_2003.pdf





2011 FAWN CWD POSITIVE ILLINOIS



1/26/11 WINNEBAGO 344N 2E S36 F FAWN SHARPSHOOTING



2/10/11 OGLE 341N 1E S7 F FAWN SHARPSHOOTING



3/9/11 OGLE 341N 1E S7 M FAWN SHARPSHOOTING



http://dnr.state.il.us/CWD/2010-2011_Illinois_CWD_Report.pdf





For example, in 2008 a fawn tested positive and in 2010 an infected yearling buck was detected in Smith County



http://www.kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Hunting/Big-Game-Information/Chronic-Wasting-Disease/2011-2012-CWD-Surveillance-Sampling-Goals





DEER ELK GAME FARM ESCAPE




https://www.google.com/webhp?hl=en&tab=nw#hl=en&gs_nf=1&tok=nOc8Mdc-DFvU9suTixzsJw&cp=25&gs_id=2&xhr=t&q=deer+elk+game+farm+escape&pf=p&output=search&sclient=psy-ab&oq=deer+elk+game+farm+escape&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&gs_l=&pbx=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.r_qf.,cf.osb&fp=91b5d421091d6e2b&biw=1067&bih=503








Saturday, February 04, 2012

Wisconsin 16 age limit on testing dead deer Game Farm CWD Testing Protocol Needs To Be Revised


http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2012/02/wisconsin-16-age-limit-on-testing-dead.html




Tuesday, December 20, 2011

CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE CWD WISCONSIN Almond Deer (Buckhorn Flats) Farm Update DECEMBER 2011

The CWD infection rate was nearly 80%, the highest ever in a North American captive herd.

RECOMMENDATION: That the Board approve the purchase of 80 acres of land for $465,000 for the Statewide Wildlife Habitat Program in Portage County and approve the restrictions on public use of the site.

snip...see full text and much more here ;


http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/2011/december/12-11-2b2.pdf







2010 ESCAPES







> There were 26 reported escape incidents so far this year, this amounted to 20 actual confirmed escape incidents because 3 were previously reported, 2 were confirmed as wild deer, and 1 incident was not confirmed.





Wisconsin Conservation Congress CWD Committee Notes recorded by Secretary- Tony Grabski, Iowa County Delegate From the meeting at Mead Wildlife Area Visitor Center Milladore, WI Saturday, August 7, 2010, 9:30 AM





C. & D. Captive Cervid and Law Enforcement Update (11:10 AM)- Warden Pete Dunn gave the captive cervid farm update. There were 26 reported escape incidents so far this year, this amounted to 20 actual confirmed escape incidents because 3 were previously reported, 2 were confirmed as wild deer, and 1 incident was not confirmed. Approximately 30% of these escapes were caused by gates being left open and the other 70% resulted from bad fencing or fence related issues. The 20 actual confirmed escape incidents amounted to 77 total animals. 50 of the escaped animals were recovered or killed and 27 were not recovered and remain unaccounted for. Last year the CWD Committee passed a resolution to require double gates, but this has not gone into effect yet. Questions were raised by the committee about double fencing requirements? Pete responded that double fencing has not been practical or accepted by the industry. The DNR has the authority to do fence inspections. ?If a fence fails to pass the inspection the fencing certificate can be revoked and the farmer can be issued a citation. This year three citations and one warning have been issued for escapes.



 http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/congress/minutes/2010/cwd_committee_2010.pdf





and just for the record, the above 2010 report and statement there from i.e. ;





> Tami Ryan agreed and added that the risk of transmission through water was low because prions bind to soils preferentially.






this needs to be addressed, because risk factor for water from cwd endemic areas is a serious risk factor in my opinion. please see ;






Detection of Protease-Resistant Prion Protein in Water from a CWD-Endemic Area





snip...





These data suggest prolonged persistence and accumulation of prions in the environment that may promote CWD transmission.





snip...





The data presented here demonstrate that sPMCA can detect low levels of PrPCWD in the environment, corroborate previous biological and experimental data suggesting long term persistence of prions in the environment2,3 and imply that PrPCWD accumulation over time may contribute to transmission of CWD in areas where it has been endemic for decades. This work demonstrates the utility of sPMCA to evaluate other environmental water sources for PrPCWD, including smaller bodies of water such as vernal pools and wallows, where large numbers of cervids congregate and into which prions from infected animals may be shed and concentrated to infectious levels.





snip...end...full text at ;





http://www.landesbioscience.com/





http://www.cwd-info.org/pdf/3rd_CWD_Symposium_utah.pdf





http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2009/08/third-international-cwd-symposium-july.html





http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2009/10/detection-of-protease-resistant-cervid.html







Wisconsin’s Chronic Wasting Disease Response Plan: 2010–2025





(e) Farmed Cervid Escapes. Fencing failures and violations are a major cause of farmed cervid escapes. The state regulates all cervid farm fences; however, currently the DNR only has authority over white-tailed deer farm fencing. In an effort to standardize fencing requirements and recognizing the larger field staff of the DNR and the relative limitations that DATCP has with their ability to conduct on-site inspections, the DNR is seeking the legislative authority over all farmed cervid fencing. It is recognized that despite the currently available additional DNR field staff, this authority will likely involve a significant time commitment from the DNR and may require additional resources. Nonetheless, because the DNR has greater staff resources available for field observations, this authority will be a valuable tool for increasing the security of cervid farms and reducing escapes due to fencing failures.





Action: The DNR will work to reduce the number of animals escaping from cervid farms by seeking legislative authority for the regulation of all cervid-farm fencing.





(f) Farmed cervid testing and depopulation of infected farms. The DNR recognizes the threat of disease spread to other farmed cervids and to wild cervids from either escapes from or interactions with cervid farms that have tested positive for CWD. Accordingly, it is imperative that DNR and DATCP work together to detect such positive farms and to quickly depopulate their herds once detected. Additionally, it must be recognized that once a CWD positive farm is depopulated, the amount of time that fencing must remain intact needs to be assessed on an individual basis to prevent the possible ingress and disease exposure of wild deer in the area.





Action: The DNR will continue to work with DATCP and the farmed cervid industry to: increase the compliance with monitoring, testing, record keeping and cervid movement regulations; expedite the depopulation of farms with CWD-positive animals; and minimize the future risk of those depopulated farms to wild and farmed herds by seeking legislative authority to regulate fences of depopulated farms.





 http://knowcwd.com/Portals/0/PDFs/15-Year%20Response%20Plan.pdf






Wisconsin 2009 5 year plan





Captive Cervid Farms





There is great concern shared among the Department and many conservation groups about the potential risk captive-cervid farms present for the transmission of CWD to wild cervids. Deer farmers also have concerns about transmission of the disease to their farms from wild deer. Although this plan is for managing CWD in free-ranging deer, many questions were raised about the captive-cervid industry during the briefings that were held. The Conservation Congress, Wisconsin Wildlife Federation, Wisconsin Chapter of The Wildlife Society, and the Voigt Intertribal Task Force all voiced concerns about the captive-cervid industry. The tribes in particular view captive-cervid operations in the ceded territory as a bigger threat to spreading CWD in the ceded territory than free-ranging deer. Of the 29 people who offered web-based comments on captive-cervid farms, half called for the elimination of game farms in Wisconsin and half called for tighter regulations. Concerns were raised about the number of escapes, the amount of time it has taken to depopulate some CWD-positive deer farms, and the future risk these positive farms pose to free-ranging deer if the fences are removed at these facilities. Currently, the Department of Natural Resources only has authority over the fences of currently populated white-tailed deer farms. The Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection (DA TCP) regulates animal health aspects of captive-cervid farms as it does for other animal farming operations.





To address the expressed concerns, DNR and DATCP are working together on specific farm situations as well as to fulfill the direction of the Natural Resources Board to identify and attempt to rectify any gaps in authority that are deemed obstacles to preventing the exposure of un infected wild deer to CWD-positive captive deer, and likewise, uninfected captive deer to CWD-positive wild deer. The Departments are currently in the process of identifying those authority gaps.





Although the plan only affects the Department's authority for managing CWO in free-ranging deer, these comments emphasize the importance ofthe Department's continuing efforts to work closely with DATCP and the captive cervid industry to address the concerns raised during plan development





snip...





(a) Deer & elk farms. Wisconsin’s wild and farm-raised deer herds are both at risk from CWD. Since January 2003 the DNR and the Department of Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection (DATCP) have shared enforcement and regulatory oversight of the Wisconsin captive cervid industry. DATCP’s responsibility includes registration of all Wisconsin captive cervid herds, regulation and monitoring of movements of captive cervids both inter-state and intra-state, and disease testing programs and protocols designed to detect, monitor, and control diseases in the deer farm industry. DNR’s regulatory responsibility includes the administration of a white-tailed deer farm fence program and the investigation of and response to reports of escaped farm raised deer. Staff at different levels of both agencies meet regularly in an effort to improve inter-agency communication, share data and information, and coordinate agency field enforcement and compliance efforts. A joint task force was established to oversee these shared responsibilities





 http://dnr.wi.gov/org/nrboard/2009/august/08-09-3b7.pdf







PRODUCT

Product is custom made deer feed packaged in 100 lb. poly bags. The product has no labeling. Recall # V-003-5.

CODE

The product has no lot code. All custom made feed purchased between June 24, 2004 and September 8, 2004.

RECALLING FIRM/MANUFACTURER

Farmers Elevator Co, Houston, OH, by telephone and letter dated September 27, 2004. Firm initiated recall is ongoing.

REASON

Feed may contain protein derived from mammalian tissues which is prohibited in ruminant feed.

VOLUME OF PRODUCT IN COMMERCE

Approximately 6 tons.

DISTRIBUTION

OH.

END OF ENFORCEMENT REPORT FOR October 20, 2004

http://www.fda.gov/TSS


################# BSE-L-subscribe-request@uni-karlsruhe.de #################




Subject: DOCKET-- 03D-0186 -- FDA Issues Draft Guidance on Use of Material From Deer and Elk in Animal Feed; Availability Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:47:37 –0500

From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."

To: fdadockets@oc.fda.gov



http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/07/docket-03d-0186-fda-issues-draft.html




http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/




UPDATE




Tuesday, June 05, 2012


Captive Deer Breeding Legislation Overwhelmingly Defeated During 2012 Legislative Session


http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/2012/06/captive-deer-breeding-legislation.html






TSS

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home