CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE DETECTION AND MANAGEMENT: WHAT HAS WORKED AND WHAT HAS NOT?
CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE DETECTION AND MANAGEMENT: WHAT HAS WORKED AND WHAT HAS NOT?
Report Completed by: Dr. John Fischer Matt Dunfee, CWD Alliance
2022
Thank you to project contributors:
Dr. Michael Miller, Colorado Parks and Wildlife
Dr. Dale Garner, Iowa Department of Natural Resources
Dr. Eric Hildebrand, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Jasmine Batten, Missouri Department of Conservation
James Farquhar, New York Department of Environmental Conservation
Dr. Kelly Straka, Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
Dr. Colin Gillin, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
Funding Provided By
Partly funded by the Multistate Conservation Grant Program as awarded by the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (F20AP00174)
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY................................................ 3
STATE REPORT SUMMARIES.... ................................. 5
COLORADO REPORT .................................................. 5
IOWA REPORT............................................................... 6
MINNESOTA REPORT................................................... 6
MISSOURI REPORT...................................................... 8
NEW YORK REPORT ................................................... 8
SUMMARIES of SELECT CWD MANAGEMENT-FOCUSED PEER-REVIEWED PUBLICATIONS ................... 10
CWD MANAGEMENT REVIEW.................................... 10
MULE DEER ................................................................. 10
MULE DEER AND WHITE-TAILED DEER..................... 11
WHITE-TAILED DEER.................................................... 11
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES........................................... 13
APPENDIX A: FULL STATE REPORTS.......................... 14
Colorado ..........................................................................15
IOWA..................................................................................6
MINNESOTA.................................................................... 23
MISSOURI....................................................................... 35
NEW YORK..................................................................... 43
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In an effort to provide ongoing, authoritative, and defendable guidance on science-based CWD management for state and provincial wildlife management agencies, The Wildlife Management Institute (WMI), the Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance, and the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies (AFWA) partnered on a project titled “National Coordination and Technical Assistance for the Prevention, Surveillance, and Management of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD).” This project was funded by the AFWA Multistate Conservation Grant program and was administrated by WMI. One of the objectives of this project was to document examples of CWD detection and management approaches that have thus far proven to be successful as well those that have been implemented unsuccessfully. For the purposes of this document, “success” is broadly defined as achieving one or more positive effects on early detection; response to first detection; apparent elimination of newly detected CWD foci; limiting geographic expansion (spread) of CWD foci in free-ranging cervids; limiting growth of or reducing CWD prevalence; and public acceptance, support, and compliance with CWD management efforts.
Reports of CWD detection and management actions were collected, reviewed, and summarized from five states affected by CWD in free-ranging cervids as were peer-reviewed publications describing current management successes or lack thereof. All anecdotal reports and publications referenced in this document, or links to them, are provided. The content and tone of state-submitted reports was retained in their summaries in order to reflect the unique approaches and recommendations emphasized by each agency.
It is critical to note that local circumstances may or may not allow adoption of the successful management approaches documented below. However, the authors believe that documenting the current effectiveness of CWD management approaches is vital to the evolution of more effective and efficient CWD control measures. That said, the below summaries are provided only for reference and should not be considered recommendations for a “one size fits all” approach for CWD management.
To date, the tools, techniques, and practices capable of eradicating CWD remain undiscovered. Consequently, the stated goal of state/provincial wildlife management agencies has shifted from disease eradication to limiting CWD’s negative impacts on wild cervid populations.
This review identifies management techniques that have effectively (or ineffectively) aided in early detection of CWD foci (and the agency response to them), reduced or stabilized CWD infection rates, or slowed the expansion of affected foci. These techniques are consistent with CWD management recommendations of the Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ AFWA Best Management Practices for the Prevention, Surveillance, and Management of Chronic Wasting Disease and the Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies’ Recommendations for Adaptive Chronic Wasting Disease Management in the West.
Based upon the synthesis of the reports and publications included in this report, there appear to be general best practices that lead to greater success in managing CWD in wild cervids by state and provincial wildlife management agencies. These include, but are not limited to:
• Strong, cooperative, working relationships between state wildlife management and animal agriculture agencies that have or share regulatory authority over captive cervids.
• Rapid implementation of a previously prepared CWD response plan following the first CWD detection within a jurisdiction as well as subsequent detections in additional locations.
• Characterization of geographic distribution and CWD prevalence prior to determination of management approach(s).
• Designation of a CWD Management Zone with special restrictions and regulations under the authority of the state wildlife agency.
• A robust surveillance program capable of detecting CWD when prevalence is low, geographic distribution is limited, and the disease is more amenable to management.
• Effective public education programs that clearly state management goals while facilitating hunter and landowner support for, and compliance with, CWD-related actions, recommendations, regulations, and policies.
• A sustained and sustainable, long-term approach to CWD management, i.e., planning, funding, and implementing CWD management efforts for 10-20 year timelines.
• Harvest pressure and post-season culling that limit epidemic growth and are conducted over 10-20 year timelines.
In addition to the above successful management approaches, other factors were identified that appear to facilitate or contribute to the successes documented in the reports and publications:
• State wildlife agency authority over fenced, shooting facilities with mandatory testing of all animals that die within the enclosures.
• Mandatory participation in a state CWD Herd Certification program for intrastate movement of captive animals.
• Ability to compare and analyze data from several jurisdictions with differing harvest management practices over a long period of time (10-20 years).
• Aerial examination of newly detected areas to determine deer density and factors that confound CWD management such as artificial congregation of deer at baiting, feeding, mineral licks, or other sites.
• Availability of an agency CWD Response Team seven days a week to address concerns and interests of the public, landowners, and hunters.
• One-on-one agency staff interactions at CWD sampling stations to educate and inform hunters submitting animals for sampling.
• Quick turn-around on CWD test results (within three days after submission) to accommodate taxidermists and processors (and ensure their livelihoods) and hunters wishing to consume their venison.
• Participation and remuneration of taxidermists for collection of samples for CWD testing. The following issues were identified as likely contributors to the apparent failure of some CWD management programs:
• Surveillance programs for first detection of CWD within a jurisdiction that were too short-lived, sampled too few animals, or did not adequately cover the geographic area needed to conclusively determine disease absence.
• Use of inappropriate statistical tables in the analysis of surveillance data that falsely support a conclusion that CWD was absent within an area.
• Implementation of CWD management responses that failed due inadequate characterization of the prevalence and geographic extent of a newly detected CWD focus.
• Management efforts that were inadequate in scope and scale, were too short-lived, or management effort assessments were made too soon to detect measurable impacts in the target population.
STATE REPORT SUMMARIES
COLORADO
2017 - 2021 – Colorado Parks and Wildlife
SUMMARY
The following summarizes Colorado Parks and Wildlife’s (CPW) chronic wasting disease (CWD) findings from the 2021-2022 hunting seasons and, more broadly, lessons learned over the first 5-year rotation of their mandatory testing program (2017-2021 hunting seasons). Overall, annual mandatory testing has been vital to understanding the status of CWD in Colorado, acquiring and communicating reliable prevalence estimates, and laying a foundation to assess herd-specific management actions to combat CWD.
WHAT WORKED
• Initial implementation of CPW’s CWD Response Plan.
=====
i added these two links here, because the above link does not work...
end...terry
=====
• Improved sample sizes obtained with mandatory sampling provided clearer resolution on CWD distribution & occurrence statewide in deer and elk.
• The 5-year rotation of mandatory testing seems likely to serve as a foundation for sustainable, longterm CWD monitoring.
o The rotation will allow CPW to periodically assess CWD trends and evaluate the effects of harvestbased management actions at each retest.
o The first round of statewide testing identified spatial & species targets needing most immediate management attention.
WHAT HELPED
• A statewide CWD Response Plan was approved in 2019 that included a 15-year mandatory testing plan set on a 5-year rotation. The plan also established a threshold for compulsory but unspecified management action to be taken when CWD prevalence in adult male deer within a herd unit exceeded 5%.
• Hunters seemed generally receptive to submitting heads from harvested deer or elk when required to do so, although compliance was well short of 100%.
• From 2017-2020, mandatory testing focused on deer because prior data suggested deer would have the highest CWD prevalence and the greatest need for disease management.
o Larger (~10×) numbers of deer and elk were submitted for testing than under voluntary submission.
o Allowed reliable CWD prevalence estimation at the herd level, in some cases for the first time.
• In 2021, CPW used mandatory submissions to test the 14 highest priority elk herds, with emphasis on those overlapping high-prevalence mule deer herds.
o Generated reliable estimates of CWD prevalence in elk, confirming prevalence has for the most part remained relatively low statewide.
o Allowed analysis of CWD prevalence relationships among sympatric mule deer and elk; patterns in elk prevalence generally reflect patterns in adult male mule deer (i.e., higher prevalence among elk seen where prevalence among mule deer is high).
o Laid foundation for determining if management actions in the highest prevalence deer herds that stabilize or reduce CWD prevalence also will have an effect on CWD prevalence in elk over time.
LESSONS LEARNED
• Mandatory submissions rotating on a 5-year basis appears to be a sustainable approach for statewide CWD monitoring in Colorado, and for identifying areas of greatest management concern.
• In general, local CWD prevalence among deer is higher than prevalence among elk in the same area. Monitoring CWD prevalence in deer should help identify areas where prevalence in elk also may be growing.
• Uneven and locally poor hunter compliance with mandatory testing limited reliable assessment of some herds, but even small sample sizes (~100 per herd unit) may be sufficient to identify areas of concern.
IOWA
2022 – Dale Garner (Wildlife Bureau Chief, IA DNR), et al.
SUMMARY
In 2012, Iowa received its first-ever positive test result for CWD on a hunting preserve in south-central Iowa that had its own separately located breeding facility in north-central Iowa. The Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) first detected CWD in wild deer in 2013 in northeastern Iowa. Since then, CWD has been slowly increasing its footprint to include 12 counties and 163 positive wild deer.
WHAT WORKED
• In the early 2000s, Iowa law changed to assign hunting preserves to the DNR and captive cervid breeding facilities to the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS). The DNR’s Wildlife Bureau Chief and IDALS’ State Veterinarian recognized CWD’s threat to Iowa’s public trust resources and private agricultural investments and knew working together would be more efficient and effective than working separately, especially regarding public education and politics.
WHAT HELPED
• DNR has jurisdiction over free-ranging wild white-tailed deer, taxidermists, and hunting licenses.
• By law, all cervids that die or are killed on hunting preserves must be tested for CWD.
• IDALS oversees farmed cervids (breeding facilities) and other related agricultural industries, as well as meat processors.
o To move captive animals intrastate, facilities must enroll in the CWD Herd Certification Program administered by IDALS.
o This program requires full testing and reporting compliance for all cervids at least 12 months of age that die.
o IDALS also regulates the interstate transport of cervids, ensuring that animals entering legally from out-of-state originate from herds certified by the USDA as being at low risk for having CWD.
• Dual agency response to the 2012 detection of CWD in a hunting preserve. The two agencies were lockstep the entire time, including through subsequent litigation around their respective quarantines.
o The DNR notified IDALS, which immediately began assisting with the trace back investigation.
o The positive deer originated from the breeding facility, which IDALS immediately quarantined.
DNR likewise quarantined the hunting preserve.
o When the first positive wild deer was detected, the agencies jointly promoted additional biosecurity in nearby captive cervid herds coupled with increased hunter-harvest surveillance. DNR and IDALS co-hosted public meetings to educate the public and agricultural industry.
LESSONS LEARNED
• The strong working relationship between the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (DNR) and the Iowa Department of Agriculture and Land Stewardship (IDALS) is something Iowa is proud of and believes other states should emulate to make meaningful progress in addressing CWD.
• The responses to the first CWD detection in a captive deer and later detections in free-ranging and captive cervids in Iowa, have been facilitated and strengthened by the strong working relationship between the DNR and IDALS.
MINNESOTA
2010 - 2013 – Eric Hildebrand (Wildlife Health Specialist, MN DNR), et al.
SUMMARY
In November 2010, the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources (MNDNR) detected CWD in a wild whitetailed deer for the first time as a result of hunter harvest surveillance. The case was located within 3 miles of a captive elk facility that first detected CWD in 2009. The MNDNR responded by enacting its CWD Response Plan that included a ban on recreational feeding in a 4-country area and a supplemental surveillance effort that was conducted in February–April 2011. In addition, the MNDNR (1) created a CWD Management Zone (Deer Permit Area [DPA] 602), (2) restricted whole-carcass movements outside of the zone, (3) required mandatory sampling of all adult deer harvested by hunters, and (4) continued aggressive disease surveillance of hunterharvested deer in the CWD Management Zone for 3 consecutive years (2011–2013). No additional cases of CWD were discovered in wild deer among 5,230 deer sampled. Surveillance efforts were suspended and DPA 602 was dissolved (Hunting Season 2014).
(Note: The CWD Response Plan was updated in 2019 and can be found at https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/wildlife/research/health/disease/cwd/cwd_responseplan.pdf
WHAT WORKED
• Public support for all agency efforts was achieved by maintaining an informed public through publishing/reporting updated information as it became available.
• The MNDNR CWD Response Team was available 7 days a week to address concerns and interests expressed by the general public, landowners, and hunters.
• The rapid (3-day) turnaround time for test results eased hunters’ concerns regarding spoilage of their harvested animal, gave credibility to the project, and kept MNDNR staff apprised of additional positive results.
• Accommodation of taxidermists and meat processors affected by the result reporting time and carcass movement restrictions allowed these vendors to keep their livelihoods and profession active.
• A special page was created on the MNDNR website for CWD results and updates. Hunters could easily access their results here as soon as they were available.
WHAT HELPED
• Implementation of a pre-existing CWD Response Plan.
o Initial aerial surveys found high deer density and abundant recreational feeding in the area (MN banned baiting in the early 1990s).
o Immediate ban on recreational feeding in a 4-county area.
o Designation of CWD Management Zone DPA 602; whole carcass movements were restricted outside of the zone; testing was required of all adult deer harvested by hunters; aggressive disease surveillance of hunter-harvested deer continued for 3 consecutive years.
▪ Within DPA 602, MNDNR had the authority to change hunting season lengths, bag limits, offer special disease management tags, liberalize hunting methods to increase antlerless deer harvest, and mandate presenting the animal for testing upon registration.
o Deer head collection boxes available during archery and muzzleloader seasons.
o Registration stations were staffed to collect samples from harvested deer during the regular firearms season.
o Test results were available by 3 business days following submission.
• Winter 2011 surveillance was conducted via landowner shooting permits, agency-sponsored sharpshooting, vehicle kills, and testing sick deer (1,180 deer were sampled). Subsequent surveillance was facilitated by testing hunter-harvested deer (4,050 deer were sampled).
LESSONS LEARNED
• Public support for MNDNR’s strategies to manage the disease in DPA 602 was evident at the beginning of the outbreak, but concerns arose about continued surveillance efforts when the disease was not widely detected in subsequent years.
• The 7-day/week availability of staff is beneficial but not sustainable in many circumstances. Staff fatigue and resentment may build over time. Loss of agency staff support can be just as detrimental as losing public support.
• The high cost of responding to a CWD detection event ($1.12 million for this 3-year effort) brings added scrutiny to the need for an aggressive response.
MISSOURI
2021 – Jasmine Batten (Wildlife Health Program Supervisor, MDC)
SUMMARY
The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) implemented its CWD Response plan in 2012 following detection of five CWD-positive deer within two miles of two affected captive facilities. Since 2012, CWD has been detected in a total of 18 counties in several regions across the state. The pattern of CWD in Missouri appears unique compared to what has been reported in other states with numerous noncontiguous clusters, each with a low percentage of infected deer. The reason for this pattern is unknown, but it could be due to multiple introductions. Key surveillance, monitoring, and management activities have evolved since detection of the index case, but the recommended management tenets remain constant: detect CWD early, monitor changes, apply interventions to minimize epidemic growth in prevalence and distribution, and provide accurate information to stakeholders.
WHAT WORKED
• Mandatory testing and samples provided by taxidermists resulting in repeated detections of CWD in new locations before infection rates become high and geographic distribution becomes extensive.
• Apparent elimination of a CWD introduction prior to its establishment in Cole County by rapid response to the new detection.
• Maintenance of low annual CWD prevalence in wild deer in northeast-central Missouri through deer herd management and post-season, targeted culling.
• Hunter satisfaction in affected areas (maintained through public education, information, and interactions with agency staff at sampling stations) suggests that CWD and associated regulations are not affecting hunting quality overall in Missouri.
WHAT HELPED
• Availability of a CWD Response Plan prior to detection of the first case.
• Implementation of aggressive management actions, including the establishment of CWD Management Zones (CMZ).
o Regulations to mitigate risk factors such as supplemental feeding, dispersal of young bucks, and carcass movement.
o Post-season, targeted culling within 2 miles of CWD detection.
o Liberalization of harvest regulations.
• Mandatory sampling on opening weekend of the firearms season in CMZs.
o Large numbers of samples obtained (~20,000/year).
o Several new core areas detected.
o Hunters overwhelmingly satisfied with their experience visiting sampling stations where one-onone interactions occurred with MDC staff.
• Statewide sample collection by participating taxidermists (117 statewide in 2012).
o Primarily conducted surveillance outside of CMZs
o Targets adult male deer with highest CWD prevalence (older age classes).
o Several new core areas detected.
• In Cole County, designation of a surveillance zone with a 5-mile radius of the index case in March 2015, with targeted culling in January - March, 2016 and 2017, and mandatory countywide sampling during opening weekend of the firearms seasons from 2016-2018.
LESSONS LEARNED
• Extensive surveillance and management activities are costly and may lead to fatigue among agency staff.
NEW YORK
2005 - 2021 – James Farquhar (Wildlife Bureau Chief, NY DEC)
SUMMARY
In March 2005, routine sampling of a presumably healthy captive deer in Oneida County detected the state’s index case. A second case soon was found in a deer that died from pneumonia in a nearby captive facility that was directly linked to the herd with the index case. The NY Department of Agriculture and Market (DAM) facilitated depopulation of both herds; a total of five cases were detected. By early May, the NY Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced two wild cases in Oneida County from 292 deer sampled, established a containment zone, and added restrictions on movement of deer from the zone. No additional cases of have been detected in wild or captive deer since the spring of 2005, despite extensive sampling.
WHAT WORKED
Apparent elimination of a CWD introduction in Oneida County prior to its establishment in the wild deer population due to planning, rapid response, and interagency cooperation.
WHAT HELPED
• Upon confirmation of CWD in Wisconsin in 2002, NY began steps to prepare for the eventuality of CWD in the state.
• The DEC and DAM already had a good relationship in 2002, but the prospect of CWD in wild or captive herds fostered a cooperative tone; each agency agreed to take steps jointly and within individual areas of responsibility.
• DAM initiated herd testing protocols, DEC began sampling wild deer statewide, and restricted practices that might introduce CWD from outside NY.
• Cooperatively, discussions between the DEC and DAM related to how a response might be administered resulted in each agency understanding their respective roles and responsibilities and potential actions to be taken. While the response plan was still a draft, it served as a basis for what followed in April 2005.
• The DEC initiated a wild deer sampling plan (based on the draft plan already developed) for the surrounding area which became operational by mid- April.
• Through cooperation between DAM and DEC, the state’s CWD response went from an index case to a fully operational response within days.
• Following announcement of the first case, DEC, DAM and the NY State Dept. of Health were in front of the public explaining CWD, known risks to humans, and implications to the health of the deer herd.
• Through public meetings and regular media outreach and availability, the agency explained the initial response efforts and gained public support by emphasizing that the primary objective was to characterize the scope of the situation, not manage the disease.
o We were aware that deer hunters and others wanted assurance that the goal was not to eradicate deer locally nor even initially to eliminate the disease.
LESSONS LEARNED
• Any success New York had in limiting or eliminating CWD from wild deer probably began three years prior to the first detection in central NY in 2005. The working relationship between DEC and DAM prior to detection no doubt helped and may have been the key factor in the success of the state’s CWD response.
• DAM’s relationship with deer farmers resulted in good compliance with the then- voluntary testing protocols leading to initial detection.
• New York may have just gotten lucky. But, contributing to that luck was early awareness/actions taken to minimize risk and assess captive and wild cervid populations.
SUMMARIES OF SELECT CWD MANAGEMENT-FOCUSED PEERREVIEWED PUBLICATIONS
CWD MANAGEMENT REVIEW
snip...see full report;
MONDAY, MAY 09, 2022
Colorado CWD TSE Prion Detected in 40 of 54 deer herds, 17 of 42 elk herds, and 2 of 9 moose herds
TUESDAY, JANUARY 18, 2022
Iowa Annual CWD TSE Prion surveillance effort finds 36 Iowa deer with chronic wasting disease
TUESDAY, MARCH 22, 2022
Minnesota CWD detected in a wild deer in Grand Rapids prompts DNR to update disease response plan
WEDNESDAY, APRIL 27, 2022
Missouri MDC reports final CWD results for 2021 deer season with 86 testing positive for CWD
SATURDAY, AUGUST 05, 2017
New York State DEC CWD PLAN Singeltary Submission Comment New York State DEC
From Terry Singeltary flounder9@verizon.net
To wildlife wildlife@dec.ny.gov
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 29, 2022
Texas CWD Confirmed High Fence Release Site Kaufman County, To Date 420 Cases Confirmed
FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 18, 2022
Wisconsin Lincoln County Deer Farm Confirmed with CWD
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 27, 2022
SEAFWA COMMITTEE Cervid Working Group Report August 16, 2022 CWD TSE Prion Report
Control of Chronic Wasting Disease OMB Control Number: 0579-0189 APHIS-2021-0004 Singeltary Submission
Docket No. APHIS-2018-0011 Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification
APHIS Indemnity Regulations [Docket No. APHIS-2021-0010] RIN 0579-AE65 Singeltary Comment SubmissionComment from Singeltary Sr., Terry
Posted by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service on Sep 8, 2022
Terry S. Singeltary Sr.
posted by Terry S. Singeltary Sr. at
12:18 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home