TWRA Letter to Land Owners

[BSK]

I have several problems with CWD mitigation programs being used. And the primary one is that we are taking major actions to counteract a disease that is still not that well understood.

Good evidence suggests the disease is primarily spread through bodily fluids, including saliva and urine. This is evident in the fact bucks display a higher infection rate than does. Bucks perform far more interactions with urine and saliva, as they lick rubs and pee in scrapes which is then "tasted" by subsequent bucks that visit the scrape. Which brings into the question the idea of lowering the deer density to slow the spread of the disease geographically. Some evidence exists that bucks travel farther during the rut in low density herd compared to high density herds. This makes logical sense, as bucks would have to travel farther to interact with enough does if there are few does in the area. This illuminates the major difference between incidence of the disease in a given location (percent of deer infected) and the rate at which the disease is spread geographically. It is very possible that a higher density herd could have much higher incidence rate because the close contact between deer in a high-density herd, but the same high-density herd could be spreading the disease outward at a slower rate (bucks travel shorter distances). I'm not saying this is the fact. I'm saying this a logical possibility. Again, we are taking serious measures to address a disease that is not fully understood, and we could be cutting off our nose despite our face.

Of greatest concern is this idea of releasing pen-raised deer from deer farmers back into the wild. Supposedly, these deer are either resistant or even immune to CWD. How do we know this is true? Are we going to trust an industry that has repeatedly done everything wrong for wild deer health and management and has a massive financial interest in selling deer to State Agencies? Everything they do is for profit and they have repeatedly shown themselves to be unscrupulous. Remember, they are the ones who spread this disease all over the Eastern U.S., and they did so for profit, and in many instances, using illegal means. I, for one, do not take their claims at face value. I would prefer reputable wildlife biologists at multiple university not associated with the deer breeder business study these claims. In addition, have we not learned our lesson about releasing genetically altered species into the wild? Doing so opens the door to any number of disastrous consequences.

 

[hammer33]

I have several problems with CWD mitigation programs being used. And the primary one is that we are taking major actions to counteract a disease that is still not that well understood.

Good evidence suggests the disease is primarily spread through bodily fluids, including saliva and urine. This is evident in the fact bucks display a higher infection rate than does. Bucks perform far more interactions with urine and saliva, as they lick rubs and pee in scrapes which is then "tasted" by subsequent bucks that visit the scrape. Which brings into the question the idea of lowering the deer density to slow the spread of the disease geographically. Some evidence exists that bucks travel farther during the rut in low density herd compared to high density herds. This makes logical sense, as bucks would have to travel farther to interact with enough does if there are few does in the area. This illuminates the major difference between incidence of the disease in a given location (percent of deer infected) and the rate at which the disease is spread geographically. It is very possible that a higher density herd could have much higher incidence rate because the close contact between deer in a high-density herd, but the same high-density herd could be spreading the disease outward at a slower rate (bucks travel shorter distances). I'm not saying this is the fact. I'm saying this a logical possibility. Again, we are taking serious measures to address a disease that is not fully understood, and we could be cutting off our nose despite our face.

Of greatest concern is this idea of releasing pen-raised deer from deer farmers back into the wild. Supposedly, these deer are either resistant or even immune to CWD. How do we know this is true? Are we going to trust an industry that has repeatedly done everything wrong for wild deer health and management and has a massive financial interest in selling deer to State Agencies? Everything they do is for profit and they have repeatedly shown themselves to be unscrupulous. Remember, they are the ones who spread this disease all over the Eastern U.S., and they did so for profit, and in many instances, using illegal means. I, for one, do not take their claims at face value. I would prefer reputable wildlife biologists at multiple university not associated with the deer breeder business study these claims. In addition, have we not learned our lesson about releasing genetically altered species into the wild? Doing so opens the door to any number of disastrous consequences.

Excellent! Very well explained.
I'm also concerned with the math behind killing a large % of the deer herd.
IF a natural immunity or resistance exists, the wild deer herd is where it is most likely to be . Not in an inbred captive herd of a much smaller sample size.
The current plans where you kill off 50-75% of the herd, you have a much greater chance of removing that resistant trait from the population, or at least reducing its prevalence by at least as much as you remove infected deer.
The ugly truth is until we know much more for certain, letting mother nature take its course is probably the best answer. Let the infected deer die out and a resistant strain develop and expand.
Unfortunately CWD is a big gravy train for state wildlife agencies. So they have to DO SOMETHING so they can partake of the crisis, in other words $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

 

[MickThompson]

Excellent! Very well explained.
I'm also concerned with the math behind killing a large % of the deer herd.
IF a natural immunity or resistance exists, the wild deer herd is where it is most likely to be . Not in an inbred captive herd of a much smaller sample size.
The current plans where you kill off 50-75% of the herd, you have a much greater chance of removing that resistant trait from the population, or at least reducing its prevalence by at least as much as you remove infected deer.
The ugly truth is until we know much more for certain, letting mother nature take its course is probably the best answer. Let the infected deer die out and a resistant strain develop and expand.
Unfortunately CWD is a big gravy train for state wildlife agencies. So they have to DO SOMETHING so they can partake of the crisis, in other words $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Where is this gravy train? This gets thrown around in every CWD thread but I haven't seen any actual legislation or articles about extra money for CWD.

Help me follow the money- I can't.

 

[Trapper John]

Well there's a letter that's gonna get burned.

 

[hammer33]

Where is this gravy train? This gets thrown around in every CWD thread but I haven't seen any actual legislation or articles about extra money for CWD.

Help me follow the money- I can't.

Sure Google "CWD studies" CWD Grants, TWRA CWD money "DNR CWD grants" and the like.

Chronic Wasting Disease Management and Response ...

Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (.gov)
https://www.aphis.usda.gov › funding › cwd


Jan 14, 2025 — APHIS provides millions of dollars each year to State and Tribal governments, universities, and others to control chronic wasting disease (CWD) in wild and ...

There was a post on here not that long ago about TWRA getting a Million + in federal (I think) grant money to combat CWD.

 

[fairchaser]

Whether there's 5 deer per 1000 acres of 500 they are still going to get together. Deer all have the same needs and will feed and breed together. They also don't understand distance as a humans avoid sick humans.

I don't agree that the odds are the same. Just because they may see one another or even interact doesn't mean they will pick up the disease. If you pass through an ER with a bunch of sick people your odds of getting sick is greater if the room is packed vs only a few people. How much interaction it takes to pick up the disease is not known. It's not airborne. Can a buck breed a doe without getting sick? Idk can a doe raise a fawn without passing CWD on? But, the more deer and the closer they are, the odds go up. This is why CWD in the west is less of an issue with more space and lower deer density.

 

[fairchaser]

I have several problems with CWD mitigation programs being used. And the primary one is that we are taking major actions to counteract a disease that is still not that well understood.

Good evidence suggests the disease is primarily spread through bodily fluids, including saliva and urine. This is evident in the fact bucks display a higher infection rate than does. Bucks perform far more interactions with urine and saliva, as they lick rubs and pee in scrapes which is then "tasted" by subsequent bucks that visit the scrape. Which brings into the question the idea of lowering the deer density to slow the spread of the disease geographically. Some evidence exists that bucks travel farther during the rut in low density herd compared to high density herds. This makes logical sense, as bucks would have to travel farther to interact with enough does if there are few does in the area. This illuminates the major difference between incidence of the disease in a given location (percent of deer infected) and the rate at which the disease is spread geographically. It is very possible that a higher density herd could have much higher incidence rate because the close contact between deer in a high-density herd, but the same high-density herd could be spreading the disease outward at a slower rate (bucks travel shorter distances). I'm not saying this is the fact. I'm saying this a logical possibility. Again, we are taking serious measures to address a disease that is not fully understood, and we could be cutting off our nose despite our face.

Of greatest concern is this idea of releasing pen-raised deer from deer farmers back into the wild. Supposedly, these deer are either resistant or even immune to CWD. How do we know this is true? Are we going to trust an industry that has repeatedly done everything wrong for wild deer health and management and has a massive financial interest in selling deer to State Agencies? Everything they do is for profit and they have repeatedly shown themselves to be unscrupulous. Remember, they are the ones who spread this disease all over the Eastern U.S., and they did so for profit, and in many instances, using illegal means. I, for one, do not take their claims at face value. I would prefer reputable wildlife biologists at multiple university not associated with the deer breeder business study these claims. In addition, have we not learned our lesson about releasing genetically altered species into the wild? Doing so opens the door to any number of disastrous consequences.

Well said BSK!

 

[Hawk103161]

It's interesting to me that so little confidence in the agency to do the right thing regarding CWD. These are trained and educated researchers with PhD educations and decades of wildlife management under their belt. They also have collaborated with other agencies to determine the best path in slowing the spread of this deadly disease.

This is a complex disease that spreads by deer proximity and deer density. Once it takes hold, it is very difficult or impossible to reverse.

I'm not suggesting that we blindly follow the powers that be but we should do our own research before making off the cuff decisions. The ultimate goal should be to keep the infection rate as low as possible for as long as possible.

Most can't understand why we would kill deer to keep deer from dying but nobody would hesitate to kill a cow with a contagious disease before it infected their entire herd.

If you knew WHICH Cow...Sure would kill it.. I would NOT kill my whole herd to find that 1.. I'm around the cattle EVERYDay. I know which 1 is healthy which 1 is not....You can't say that with the deer.... a deer can be walking around with CWD and can seemingly be healthy... If you leave 1 deer with CWD them you've done nothing but kill healthy animals and left 1 that isn't.... How will you know unless they are ALL killed with none left.... ZERO left...... CWD lives almost forever in the soil they say....If that's the case you will never get rid of it.... I don't have the answer. I don't think killing them all just willy nilly is it.... In Alaska you'd go to jail for doing this.... Wanton Waste PERIOD

 

[Omega]

If you knew WHICH Cow...Sure would kill it.. I would NOT kill my whole herd to find that 1.. I'm around the cattle EVERYDay. I know which 1 is healthy which 1 is not....You can't say that with the deer.... a deer can be walking around with CWD and can seemingly be healthy... If you leave 1 deer with CWD them you've done nothing but kill healthy animals and left 1 that isn't.... How will you know unless they are ALL killed with none left.... ZERO left...... CWD lives almost forever in the soil they say....If that's the case you will never get rid of it.... I don't have the answer. I don't think killing them all just willy nilly is it.... In Alaska you'd go to jail for doing this.... Wanton Waste PERIOD

Even worse, even if you were to eliminate the entire TN herd, it is in the environment now, so any replacement herd is bound to get it too. I do not feel that killing indiscriminately is the answer. Feed, mineral, as well as transportation restrictions I can see, but killing them all just to have it start again doesn't seem smart. I understand that experts and Phd's are all over this, but they were also all over starting it in the first place, not to mention all the experts and Phd's during Covid, and look where that got us.

 

[knightrider]

You cant beat Mother Nature, stop wasting my tax money on more stupid irresponsible , that you cant do anything about!!!

 

[BSK]

Feed, mineral, as well as transportation restrictions I can see, but killing them all just to have it start again doesn't seem smart.

This exactly! I have no problem with common sense rules that probably do slow the spread, such as bans on feeding deer from feeders, bans on transporting body parts, etc. But devastating the herds because it "might" help? That's a step too far for me.

 

[Lost Lake]

Even worse, even if you were to eliminate the entire TN herd, it is in the environment now, so any replacement herd is bound to get it too. I do not feel that killing indiscriminately is the answer. Feed, mineral, as well as transportation restrictions I can see, but killing them all just to have it start again doesn't seem smart. I understand that experts and Phd's are all over this, but they were also all over starting it in the first place, not to mention all the experts and Phd's during Covid, and look where that got us.

This is what I've thought for quite a while now. If the prions TRULY live for years in the soil, (and I'm even wondering about that now too), and in plant life living in that soil, then even if every single deer was killed, ANY deer coming afterward would still be able to contract it from that soil.

And, I have my doubts about whether those prions will be kept from spreading East, even without deer.

 

[fairchaser]

Trying to kill the herd is not a good strategy even if accomplishing that would slow the spread. Because it can't be accomplished. Deer just move around and learn quickly to avoid danger. Ames found this out when they tried to trap deer. Once the jig was up, it became nigh impossible to accomplish. They resorted mostly to netting them with helicopters.
Even if you killed a bunch of deer, you may not accomplish very much and seems the cost /benefit really doesn't work. I'm not for it based on my limited knowledge.

 

[turkey32]

i didn't get a letter and i own a couple acres!!

 

[ROB]

Does anyone know if an immunity can be passed on to the fawns if a mother has it. Have they tested this theory at all. ?

I'm unaware of any proven immunity to CWD whatsoever. Just because someone says they have deer that are immune doesn't make it so. They may simply be trying to profit from those deer.

 

[ROB]

Where is this gravy train? This gets thrown around in every CWD thread but I haven't seen any actual legislation or articles about extra money for CWD.

Help me follow the money- I can't.

There is no big gravy train for wildlife agencies. Conspiracy theorists love to use that old saw to justify not taking action against this disease. Then, once once the infection rate has skyrocketed in an area, these same ppl will complain long & loud that something should have been done. Common sense should tell you that CWD will spread less in an area where the population is lower.

I say let hunters have first crack at the deer in areas where there is an overpopulation. That has to be better than snipers doing "targeted removal" or farmers with depredation permits gut shooting deer that die & rot in fencerows, TWRA should provide the opportunity to test each deer. If negative, it could be donated to Hunters for the Hungry or the hunter could eat it. If positive, TWRA should provide a way to use the infected meat, if one can be found, or the hunter could keep it & eat it, if they want to.

CWD has cost wildlife agencies millions. I've yet to se proof where they're receiving big dollars for CWD mitigation.

 

[hammer33]

There is no big gravy train for wildlife agencies. Conspiracy theorists love to use that old saw to justify not taking action against this disease. Then, once once the infection rate has skyrocketed in an area, these same ppl will complain long & loud that something should have been done. Common sense should tell you that CWD will spread less in an area where the population is lower.

I say let hunters have first crack at the deer in areas where there is an overpopulation. That has to be better than snipers doing "targeted removal" or farmers with depredation permits gut shooting deer that die & rot in fencerows, TWRA should provide the opportunity to test each deer. If negative, it could be donated to Hunters for the Hungry or the hunter could eat it. If positive, TWRA should provide a way to use the infected meat, if one can be found, or the hunter could keep it & eat it, if they want to.

CWD has cost wildlife agencies millions. I've yet to se proof where they're receiving big dollars for CWD mitigation.

Google it. Funding exists and wildlife agencies are getting grants. Are CWD "hot spots" getting funding? Yes. Could the money be influencing strategy? That is the $$$$ million dollar question.

 

[MickThompson]

Google it. Funding exists and wildlife agencies are getting grants. Are CWD "hot spots" getting funding? Yes. Could the money be influencing strategy? That is the $$$$ million dollar question.

CWD existed long before the money did. Are tools being added if funds are available? That seems like a reasonable idea. I want state wildlife agencies to try new things and research the problem. You can't fix what you don't understand.

The question that needs to be asked is this- are decisions being made to perpetuate funding or spread /worsen the disease (to perpetuate funding)? That would be the motive and I've seen no evidence of that.

 

[mike243]

I will bet what $ the feds are giving ain't a drop in the bucket as to the total cost. Some things throwing $$ wont help like some folks think. hard choices have to be made and nobody will like any of it. So the states that have been dealing with it for the longest how many of the deer left tested showed immunity? I don't trust deer farms 1 bit and feel they are the ones that have caused the spread into places it wasn't, it may have been a long time before it ever reached this area by natural means due to the thinning population up north. Coarse it's hard to place all the blame on the deer farms, folks wanting trophy deer and deer products to lure deer in are what grew the deer farms.