Announcement

**Mudslinger** · 04-22-2019, 11:32 AM

Originally posted by deerwatcher51 View Post

Part of this proposal will give the commission the right to restrict supplemental feeding and baiting with corn.

Link?

**deerwatcher51** · 04-22-2019, 11:45 AM

CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE MANAGEMENT PLAN

TEXAS PARKS AND WILDLIFE DEPARTMENT

AND

TEXAS ANIMAL HEALTH COMMISSION

May 2019

The following management plan will serve to guide Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD) and Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) in addressing risks, developing management strategies, and protecting big game resources from Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in captive or free-ranging cervid populations. Both agencies recognize the need for full cooperation and partnership among government agencies, conservation organizations, private landowners, hunters, and the general public in managing CWD in Texas. CWD is a reportable disease and TAHC has authority for reporting and tracking this disease in alternative livestock, which includes elk, red deer, sika deer and their hybrids, and for overseeing a herd certification program for interstate movement. TPWD has regulatory authority for free-ranging white-tailed deer and mule deer, and both agencies share regulatory authority regarding disease surveillance and movement qualification standards for captive deer possessed under the authority of Deer Breeder Permits.

This management plan is intended to be dynamic; management strategies described within are likely to change as both the epidemiology and management of this disease become better understood through time. Specific response actions may be developed and incorporated into this plan following local or regional discoveries of CWD. Three major goals of this CWD management plan are:
1. Minimize CWD risks to the free-ranging and captive white-tailed deer, mule deer, and other susceptible species in Texas.
2. Establish and maintain support for prudent CWD management with hunters, landowners, and other stakeholders.
3. Minimize direct and indirect impacts of CWD to hunting, hunting related economies, and conservation in Texas.

BACKGROUND
Chronic Wasting Disease is a fatal transmissible neurological disease in the family of infectious diseases known as transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs). Other TSEs include bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) in cattle, scrapie in sheep, feline spongiform encephalopathy (FSE) in cats in Europe, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD) and variant (vCJD) in humans. CWD is believed to be neither bacterial nor viral, but caused by a misfolded protein (“prion”) that replicates and infects other normal proteins (Fryer and McLean 2011). CWD is aptly named for the symptoms caused by the disease: appetite loss, weight loss (hence the name “wasting disease”), listlessness, excessive drooling, blank stares, decreased awareness, and behavioral changes (Williams 2005). Death of infected individuals is inevitable and is believed to often occur by increased predation or by aspiration pneumonia (CWD Alliance 2012). The diagnosis of the disease cannot be made by symptoms, since other toxic and neurological afflictions can cause the animal to exhibit similar symptoms. Although Texas A&M Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory (TVMDL) has been performing diagnostic testing on tissues collected from live animals since 2016 under an agreement authorized by the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN), currently there is no USDA-approved live-animal test for CWD. Immunohistochemistry (IHC) is the confirmatory test to diagnose CWD by detecting CWD-associated prion protein (PrPCWD) in brain tissues (specifically in the obex of the medulla oblongata) or retropharyngeal lymph nodes. Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay (ELISA) is a more rapid test using the same tissues but is considered by USDA to be a screening test. Therefore, a suspect positive requires confirmation by IHC. Incubation periods in naturally-exposed free-ranging deer are difficult to determine, but average incubation period is thought to be 2 to 4 years (Williams 2005). From the time clinical symptoms are recognized, death often occurs within several months (Williams and Miller 2002). Captive-deer research has recorded deaths of mule deer and white-tailed deer infected with CWD at 41 and 59 months, respectively (Miller and Wild 2004). The time it takes an animal to succumb to CWD varies based on method of exposure, intensity of exposure, genetics, and other factors.

The origin of CWD is unknown, but it was first recognized in 1967 in captive mule deer in the Colorado Parks and Wildlife captive wildlife research facility in Fort Collins, Colorado. This disease received little attention until it was discovered in free-ranging white-tailed deer in southern Wisconsin in early 2002. To date, CWD has been detected in free-ranging and/or captive cervids in 26 states and 3 Canadian provinces (Figure 1). This disease was first detected in Texas in July 2012 when two free-ranging mule deer does in the Hueco Mountains of northern El Paso and Hudspeth counties in far west Texas tested positive. The disease has since been detected in free-ranging white-tailed deer, mule deer, and elk in the northwestern Texas Panhandle, in 5 captive white-tailed deer breeding facilities including 4 facilities in Medina County and a trace-out facility in Lavaca County, and in free-ranging white-tailed deer in Medina County not associated with a captive breeding facility or release site. Current information on CWD detections in Texas can be found at www.tpwd.texas.gov/cwd and www.tahc.state.tx.us/animal_health/elk-deer/.

Despite considerable CWD research during the past several decades, much remains unknown about the disease. A progressive, fatal disease with no known immunity or treatment, CWD is known to occur via natural transmission in white-tailed deer, mule deer, black-tailed deer, red deer, sika deer, elk, reindeer, moose and experimentally in muntjac (Sohn et al. 2011, CWD Alliance 2012, Saunders et al. 2012). Transmission to other species including fallow deer, cattle, sheep, goats, mink, ferrets, squirrel monkeys, voles, and mice experimentally via intracerebral inoculation (Saunders et al. 2012), but research indicates that CWD infection of livestock through natural pathways is unlikely (Sigurdson 2008). The discovery of multiple strains of CWD suggests potential for interspecies transmission (Belay et al. 2004, Barria et al. 2011); however, it is important to note that CWD has not shown the ability to jump the species barrier to humans (Sandberg et al. 2010, Apostol et al. 2011). While inconsistent with findings of similar research, the infectivity of macaques via oral gavage as reported by Czub et al. (PRION 2017) increased concern by Center for Disease Control. This was evidenced by their modified recommendations regarding (1) testing susceptible species harvested within a CWD endemic area, and (2) consumption of venison from CWD-positive animals. CDC’s recommendations can be found at: https://www.cdc.gov/prions/cwd/prevention.html .

Figure 1. Distribution of CWD in North America, 2019.

TRANSMISSION

There are two primary sources of exposure to CWD for uninfected deer: 1) CWD infected deer, and 2) CWD contaminated environment (Williams et al. 2002, Miller et al. 2004, Mathiason et al. 2009). It is believed that some TSE prions may appear spontaneously and sporadically, but there is no evidence of spontaneous CWD (Chesebro 2004, Greenlee and Greenlee 2015) in North America. Recent cases of CWD in moose in Norway and Finland are suspected to be spontaneous (Pirisinu 2018). The presence of infected deer in one area over time increases the number of infectious CWD prions in that environment. As CWD becomes established in an area, environmental contamination may become the primary source of exposure for uninfected deer. Conversely, in areas where CWD is not established, and where the environment is relatively uncontaminated, direct animal contact is considered the most likely source of transmission of CWD to uninfected deer. Research also indicates that tissue from infected carcasses can serve as a source of infection and contribute to environmental contamination (Miller et al. 2004). In early stages of infection, limiting the growth of environmental contamination through the reduction of infected individuals may offer some control in limiting disease prevalence and distribution (Wasserberg et al. 2009, Almberg et al. 2011). However, infected individuals on the landscape serve as a reservoir for prions, which will be shed into the environment. Prions are shed from infected animals in saliva, urine, blood, soft-antler material, and feces (Gough et al. 2009, Mathiason et al. 2009, Saunders et al. 2012). There are no known management strategies to mitigate the risk of indirect transmission of CWD once an environment has been contaminated with infectious prions and there is no proven effective method for cleaning and disinfection. This makes eradication of CWD very difficult, if not impossible in areas where CWD has been established for a long period before initial detection.

IMPLICATIONS OF CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE

The number of states and provinces in which CWD has been discovered has steadily increased in the past decade, forcing many state and provincial wildlife agencies, hunters, and stakeholders to confront the myriad of consequences and implications this disease presents. Implications of CWD are often centered on the anticipated, or unknown potential impacts to wild cervid populations, most notably concerns for population declines resulting from infected herds. Other potential implications include concerns or impacts over human health and safety, economic losses related to CWD, hunter retention and recruitment, hunter participation, hunter displacement, public concern for the overall welfare of deer, lack of knowledge about CWD by hunters and non-hunters with potential to influence policy, acceptance of management strategies to address CWD, and general mistrust of state agencies to manage chronic wasting disease outbreaks. Disease eradication is expected to become less attainable as CWD becomes more established in a population, emphasizing the criticality of a sound CWD surveillance and response plan. Of course, disease prevention is the best approach to protecting cervid populations and avoiding social and economic repercussions resulting from CWD or other wildlife diseases (Sleeman & Gillin 2012).

Initial news of the discovery of CWD in new areas within Texas could result in dissemination of speculative and unfounded information which may result in apathy toward CWD management among hunters, landowners, and other stakeholders, and possibly unnecessary panic among others. Dissemination of accurate and factual information regarding CWD is important to establish understanding among the various stakeholders of the magnitude of risks posed by CWD, and support for CWD management efforts (Stafford et al. 2006). With the extent of private lands in Texas, landowners and hunters play a key role in helping TPWD and TAHC manage CWD. Failure to keep these groups and others informed with relevant facts could influence how they view disease management strategies (Vaske et al. 2006). Uninformed constituents could contribute to other serious implications associated with CWD including poor hunter recruitment and retention, hunter displacement, and unintentional spread of CWD through transportation of live deer or deer carcasses.

Survival rates of CWD infected deer are considerably less than uninfected deer (Miller et al. 2008). The prevalence of CWD exceeds 20% and even 50% in some deer populations in Wisconsin, Colorado, and Wyoming (Saunders et al. 2012). Prevalence rates documented in mule deer near Boulder, CO were 41% for adult males and 20% for adult females. Chronic wasting disease is believed to have existed in this herd since at least 1985 and has coincided with a 45% decline in mule deer abundance over the next two decades, despite adequate habitat and no hunting (Miller et al. 2008). The South Converse Game Unit in Wyoming has prevalence rates exceeding 50% and that unit has seen an approximate 50% decline in mule deer populations (Wyoming Game and Fish Department 2012). While the majority of areas in North America have relatively low prevalence rates, only recently has CWD been detected in these areas. Because CWD is believed to spread relatively slowly through wild populations and the environment (Conner et al. 2007) when disease prevalence is low, long-term implications on population stability and productivity are likely of greater concern than short-term population impacts.

Under many of the current scenarios where CWD occurs at relatively low prevalence rates in relatively localized areas, hunter retention or displacement is not of great concern for those state agencies (Petchenik 2003, Gigliotti 2004, Miller 2004, Needham et al. 2007, Zimmer et al. 2012). However, an increase in prevalence rate or disease distribution, or findings indicating that CWD may be a human health risk, is expected to alter hunter behavior significantly (Needham et al. 2007, Vaske 2009, Zimmer 2012). Needham et al. (2007) found that casual hunters, those who are new to hunting or hunt occasionally, were most likely to quit hunting (61%). Loss of casual or new hunters over the long term would have serious implications on hunter recruitment and ultimately impacts on hunting license sales and conservation funding. Hunters seem to make decisions based on the severity of the potential risks. As risk increases, behaviors are expected to change. It is reasonable for TPWD and TAHC to: 1) take proactive efforts to educate hunters about CWD using timely information, 2) develop plans that eliminate (if possible), or maintain CWD prevalence at low levels to limit its geographic extent, and 3) continue to monitor prevalence rates.

Potential economic implications from CWD include decreased hunting-license sales and displacement of hunters from CWD infected areas (J.M. Crum, West Virginia Division of Natural Resources, unpublished data). Obviously, this would impact rural towns and communities deriving economic benefit from big game hunting. Shifts in hunting locations could lead to reapportioning revenue to other areas of the state where CWD prevalence is not as high or where CWD has not been detected (Bishop 2004, Zimmer 2012).

Trust in state wildlife agencies among hunters and the public is an important factor in fostering support for management actions (Vaske et al. 2009). Lack of trust could increase perceptions of elevated risk, ultimately causing changes in behavior such as cessation of hunting or displacement of hunters to other areas. Many hunters are still concerned about potential health risks associated with CWD (Needham and Vaske 2008, Lyon and Vaske 2010, and Needham et al. 2017); although, CWD has not been found to cause human health concerns (World Health Organization 2000). Perceived risks by hunters may be in part a result of mixed messages communicated by state wildlife agencies (Needham and Vaske 2008) and the CDC ; where on one hand messages communicated to hunters indicates there are no known human health hazards associated with CWD, but on the other hand advises hunters to take precautions when processing animals and advising hunters against consuming venison from animals in which CWD was subsequently detected (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2019). For the most part, the general public, including hunters, trust state wildlife agencies when it comes to managing CWD (Needham and Vaske 2008); however, specific management practices may be unpopular with hunters. A proposed population reduction in areas of Pennsylvania by sharpshooting met with significant opposition by hunters in 2018. Studies have indicated that hunters have been supportive of testing harvested animals for CWD and using hunters to reduce herds in CWD-endemic areas, while taking no action and allowing CWD to “run its natural course” were considered unacceptable. In several states where addressing and mitigating CWD by the state’s regulatory agency was not a priority and now the disease is endemic, hunters along with hunting and conservation organizations have voiced concerns with the impacts of CWD. They have requested that their state governments and wildlife agencies take a more proactive approach to CWD management as well as provide more funding for management and research.

DISEASE MANAGEMENT

Since the recognition of CWD in the 1960’s there has been much research on different facets of the disease. However, there has been very little viable research conducted on managing the disease. Many different strategies to combat CWD have been employed around the country with varying levels of success. For disease eradication, early detection of CWD infected animals is paramount. The time between introduction and detection of the disease is the most critical factor impacting an agency’s ability to control and possibly eradicate the disease before it can become established. Once the environment becomes a reservoir for CWD prions, mitigating the spread of the disease may be the only reasonable course of action. Population reductions may help reduce the dispersion of infected deer to non-infected areas. Severe population reductions within a reasonable area around the index case would likely be most effective in scenarios where CWD appears to have been recently introduced and has not likely become established in the environment (Brown et al. 2005). However, severe culling efforts have been less popular in areas where CWD is well established, as hunters and the general public eventually grow weary from the intensive culling practices that continue indefinitely.

Eradication Attempts – New York discovered CWD in two different captive herds during routine CWD surveillance in 2005. They promptly initiated an intensive surveillance effort within 10 miles of the infected premises and detected CWD in two free-ranging deer. It appears that removal of those two deer at least temporarily prevented further spread of CWD, as the disease has not been detected in any additional deer despite intensive sampling through severe population reductions for the following five years (Brown et al. 2005). CWD surveillance continues in that area of the state and the disease has not since been detected.

Control Attempts – Eradication is an unrealistic management option in areas of Wyoming, Colorado, and Wisconsin, where CWD has been established for many years. Eradication is also unlikely in the Hueco Mountains of west Texas, and the northwest Texas Panhandle, where deer populations are already at very low densities, and neighboring states may be sources of CWD positive animals moving back and forth across state lines. In these situations, major population reductions might not prevent animals from contracting CWD from the contaminated environment. Although, strategies to restrict or reduce the movements of free-ranging or captive cervids and carcass parts from CWD endemic areas may effectively reduce the spread of CWD. Some states partner with hunters to help monitor prevalence and distribution, as well as manage deer and elk populations to meet CWD-management objectives. Several states also employ other disease management strategies such as a ban on baiting/feeding, prohibiting unnatural (i.e., man-induced) movements of deer or carcasses, bans on urine-based attractants, and general education efforts to encourage responsible actions by hunters and other stakeholders (CWD Alliance website 2019 and Michigan DNR, unpublished data).

Outreach and Education – A well designed outreach and education plan is a critical component of this CWD management plan to keep Texas hunters and citizenry informed and educated with the most recent information about CWD. Ensuring that current and accurate information is provided to hunters and other constituents is essential to facilitate understanding and compliance with management strategies designed to curtail disease expansion. Strategies designed to increase public awareness of CWD and the implications of CWD include:
• Network with natural resource professionals and encourage them to schedule CWD presentations with wildlife, hunting, or other conservation organizations as well as local civic groups.
• Develop and distribute information to relevant businesses (e.g., taxidermists, processors, feed stores) and local radio, newspaper, and television media. Information may be designed to focus on specific issues of importance to landowners, hunters, meat processors, taxidermists, veterinarians, rehabilitators, feed companies, feeder manufacturers, and operators of captive deer and elk facilities. This information includes:
▪ basic history and understanding of CWD;
▪ CWD distribution, and status of knowledge of the disease (e.g., epidemiology, transmission, clinical signs, population effects);
▪ other CWD related issues and cautions (e.g., carcass handling and proper carcass disposal, meat preparation and consumption, deer feeding); and
▪ potential research and management actions.
• Maintain the TPWD and TAHC CWD webpages to provide the public with up-to-date disease information, research findings, management strategies, and other pertinent information.

SURVEILLANCE EFFORTS

CWD sampling is stratified within each Deer Management Unit (DMU) based on a risk assessment that was redesigned in 2016. The risk assessment considers the following factors for each DMU: number of CWD samples collected in previous years, number of deer breeding facilities, number of Class III release sites (i.e., direct trace-outs from CWD positive facilities), and the proximity of a county to known CWD and the Texas border. These data for each DMU were converted to a Z-score and scores for each risk category were then ranked. The priorities were ranked independently within each ecoregion. Figure 2 illustrates the sampling goal for each DMU based on that risk assessment.

Figure 2. Annual CWD sampling goals for each Deer Management Unit (DMU).
TPWD received an average of approximately 2,300 “Not Detected” test results annually for free-ranging white-tailed deer and mule deer populations throughout the state from 2002 through the 2014-15 hunting season. Sampling intensity increased significantly following the June 2015 detection of CWD in a permitted deer breeding facility that traded deer extensively with other facilities and release sites from across the state. Since then, “Not Detected” test results have been received for an average of >13,000 free-ranging white-tailed deer and mule deer for each of the subsequent 4 years. The majority of free-ranging deer samples were collected from hunter-harvested deer. The remaining samples collected were from deer killed by vehicles as well as deer exhibiting clinical symptoms.

CWD surveillance for permitted deer breeding facilities also increased significantly since the index case that was confirmed on June 30, 2015. Prior to that detection, deer breeding facilities were required to test only 20% of reported eligible-aged mortalities (i.e., deer ≥16 months of age) to maintain Movement Qualified (MQ) status, which resulted in an average of almost 1,700 “Not Detected” test results annually from 2006 through August 2015. Surveillance requirements increased in 2016, to include at least 80% of reported eligible-aged mortalities and at least 3.6% of the eligible-aged herd size (which may involve ante-mortem sampling within herds that reported zero mortalities) to maintain MQ status. “Not Detected” test results were submitted for an annual average of ~4,500 postmortem samples for the following 4 years. The 2016-17 hunting season marked the first season in which CWD testing was required of breeder-deer release sites. Only release sites with Class II or Class III status had testing obligations, and the status of a release site was dependent on the status of its source deer breeding facility. Class I release sites received deer only from breeding facilities with TC 1 status, which are believed to pose the least relative risk; Class II release sites received deer from at least 1 breeder with TC 2 status, which is believed to pose moderate relative risk; and Class III release sites previously received deer from CWD-positive facilities and breeding facilities with TC 3 status, which is believed to pose the highest relative risk. Class II release sites were required to test a portion of harvested deer, and Class III sites were required to test 100% of harvested deer. Release site testing ceased to exist for all compliant release sites on March 1, 2019. Additionally, almost 30,000 ante-mortem samples were collected through February 2019 either to 1) substitute for missed postmortem samples, or 2) achieve a TC 1 status, which would result in no testing of deer harvested on recipient release sites.

Continued surveillance is imperative to detect CWD soon after entry, which would provide multiple management options towards disease eradication before it becomes established within a population. Updated CWD surveillance data may be obtained at www.tpwd.texas.gov/cwd.

RESPONSE PLAN - FREE-RANGING POPULATIONS

Upon detection of CWD in a free-ranging animal, TPWD and TAHC will create surveillance and containment zones based on:
• known current geographic extent of the disease;
• home-range and movement patterns of the species affected;
• past sampling in the area; and
• population distribution.

The boundaries for these zones will be delineated by geopolitical landmarks that are easily recognized by landowners and hunters (i.e., roads, rivers, etc.).
Restrictions on activities within these zones will be designed to reduce the risk of spreading the disease to areas outside of the zones by:
• limiting unnatural movement of live CWD susceptible species;
• limiting the movement of carcass parts to prevent the possibility of spreading infectious CWD material;
• managing cervid populations at or below carrying capacity of the habitat; and
• increasing surveillance to determine the extent and prevalence of the disease.

Containment Zone: A geographic area in this state within which CWD has been detected or the TPWD and TAHC have determined, using the best available science and data, CWD detection is probable, and where the following management practices will be conducted:
a. mandatory sampling of harvested CWD susceptible species;
b. mandatory restrictions on removing from the zone those carcass parts that are known to concentrate infectious material, primarily brain, spinal cord and viscera; and
c. restrictions on live deer movements:
i. no Trap, Transport, Translocate (TTT) permits;
ii. no Deer Management Permits (DMP);
iii. no establishment of new deer breeding facilities;
iiii. no movement out of the zone of susceptible cervid species; and
v. limited movement within the zone of animals considered to be of lower risk by increased testing levels on that herd.

Surveillance Zone: A geographic area in this state within which TPWD and TAHC have determined, using the best available science and data, that the presence of CWD could reasonably be expected, or the area adjacent to a known CWD area, and where the following management practices will be conducted:
a. mandatory sampling of CWD susceptible species harvested in the zone;
b. mandatory restrictions on removing from the zone those carcass parts that are known to concentrate infectious material, primarily brain, spinal cord and viscera; and
c. restrictions on live deer movements:
i. no TTT out of the zone; and
ii. all deer transferred from DMP facility must be released on the adjacent property.

The delineations and rules pertaining to these zones will be reviewed as needed by TPWD and TAHC, with stakeholder input, and changes made accordingly from information gained through surveillance and new scientific knowledge.

Statewide

The following management strategies may also be implemented as part of the statewide response:
• liberalization of deer season bag limits and season lengths in specific areas to facilitate increased harvest, and/or may provide harvest recommendations to private landowners to help reduce deer densities, and adjust sex ratios to meet disease management goals;
• collection of samples from road kills and clinical animals should remain a high priority,
o TPWD and TAHC may request assistance from local and state law enforcement agencies, local government entities, TXDOT, Texas Agri-Life Extension, local landowners, hunters, and CWD certified sample collectors in sample collection from road kills or clinical animals;
• restrictions on baiting or feeding or any other activity that unnaturally concentrates deer;
• creation of special permits to aid in disease management;
• redefining “proof of sex” regulations to facilitate carcass movement restrictions;
• maintain outreach programs and educational information to keep landowners and hunters abreast of current information; and
• with cooperation of private landowners, TPWD and TAHC may utilize sharpshooting to harvest cervids in areas where sampling may not be adequate.

RESPONSE PLAN - CAPTIVE FACILITIES

Upon detection of CWD in a captive cervid facility, TPWD and TAHC will:
• Immediately place the affected facility under TAHC quarantine and change the facility status to non-movement qualified (NMQ), as applicable.
• Initiate an epidemiological investigation to determine trace-forward and trace-back herds that have received animals from, or contributed animals to the CWD-positive herd within the past five years and place them under TAHC hold order with TPWD NMQ status, as applicable.
• TAHC and TPWD will work with the facility owners to develop testing plans and herd plans to outline the steps to be taken to eliminate the risk to other captive and free-ranging cervid populations. Elements of the herd plan will require the following key components:
o depopulation and post-mortem testing of positive facilities, and euthanasia and testing of exposed animals in trace facilities is the best course to reduce as much as possible the risk to other captive and free-ranging populations;
o if depopulation is not feasible or acceptable, a plan incorporating ante-mortem testing may be considered;
o increased surveillance including the mandatory submission of samples from all mortalities in a breeding facility shall be implemented;
o mandatory hunter harvest testing shall be required on associated properties and a potential reduction in population densities may be required;
o increased biosecurity measures will be addressed;
o effective cleaning and disinfection protocols based on the most recent science will be required;
o proper carcass disposal will be implemented;
o fencing will be maintained to prevent the ingress or egress of susceptible species; and
o additional CWD mitigation efforts as determined by an epidemiological assessment will be addressed and reevaluated as needed.
• Containment and Surveillance Zones may be created based on the criteria for free-ranging detection. In some instances, the herd plan may suffice for a Containment Zone based on the epidemiological assessment.

Current management goals are to continue to implement strategies outlined in this plan to contain CWD where it currently exists in Texas. Commitment to sustained surveillance efforts outside of known CWD areas will also be critical for early detection, which may provide greater management options. TPWD and TAHC will continue to work together to limit the effects of this disease using science-based approaches and input from stakeholders. This plan will be continuously evaluated and revised as changes in the epidemiological situation and scientific information evolve.
LITERATURE CITED
Adamowicz, W. L., C. Arnot, P. Boxall, C. Dridi, E. Goddard, M. Jordan, K. Forbes, E. Laate, K. Myshaniuk, B. Parlee, M. Petigara, J. Unterschultz, and N. Zimmer. 2010. Research on socioeconomic impacts of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in Alberta. Department of Rural Economy, Project Report 10(03), Alberta, Canada.
Almberg, E. S., P. C. Cross, C. J. Johnson, D. M. Heisey, and B. J. Richards . 2011. Modeling routes of chronic wasting disease transmission: environmental prion persistence promotes deer population decline and extinction. PLoS ONE. 6(5):e19896.
Barria MA, Telling GC, Gambetti P, Mastrianni J, Soto C. 2011. Generation of a new form of human PrPSc in vitro by interspecies transmission from cervid prions. Journal of Biological Chemistry. 286:7490–5.
Belay, E. D., R. A. Maddox, E. S. Williams, M. W. Miller, P. Gambetti, and L. B. Schonberger. 2004.
Chronic wasting disease and potential transmission to humans. Emerging Infectious Disease Journal.
10(6). <http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/6/03-1082.htm>. Accessed 10 Apr 2012.
Bishop, R. C. 2004. The economic impacts of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in Wisconsin. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 9(3):181-92.
Brown, T. L., J. Shanahan, D. Decker, W. Siemer, P. Curtis, and J. Major. 2005. Response of hunters and the general public to the discovery of chronic wasting disease in deer in Oneida County, New York. Human Dimensions Research Unit, Department of Natural Resource Cornell University. Series 5-08.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. 2019 Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) prevention webpage. https://www.cdc.gov/prions/cwd/prevention.html . Accessed 8 Apr 2019.
Chesebro, Bruce. 2004. A fresh look at BSE. Science. 305:1918-1921.
Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance. 2012. Homepage. <http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php>. Accessed 4 Apr 2012.
Fryer, H. R., and A. R. McLean. 2011. There is no safe dose of prions. PLoS ONE. 6(8):e23664.
Gigliotti, L. M. 2004. Hunters’ concerns about chronic wasting disease in South Dakota. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 9:233-235.
Greenlee, J. J., and M. H. West Greenlee. 2015. The Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies of Livestock. ILAR Journal. 56(1): 7-25.
Gough, K.C., and B.C. Maddison. 2010. Prion transmission: Prion excretion and occurrence in the environment. Landes Bioscience Journal: Prion. 4:275–82.
Gould, F. W. 1975. Texas plants - a checklist and ecological summary. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Publication 585, College Station, Texas, USA.
Johnson, C. J., J. P. Bennett, S. M. Biro, J. C. Duque-Velasquez, C. M. Rodriguez, R. Bessen, and T. Rocke. 2011. Degradation of the disease-associated prion protein by a serine protease from lichens. PLoS ONE. 6(5):e19836.
Lyon K. M. and J. J. Vaske. 2010. Predicting Hunting Participation in Response to Chronic Wasting Disease in Four States. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 15(3):208-220. DOI: 10.1080/10871201003770004.
Mathiason, C. K., S. A. Hays, J. Powers, J. Hayes-Klug, J. Langenberg, et al. 2009. Infectious prions in pre-clinical deer and transmission of chronic wasting disease solely by environmental exposure. PLoS ONE. 4(6):e5916.
MaWhinney, S., W. J. Pape, J. E. Forster, C. A. Anderson, P. Bosque, M. W. Miller. 2006. Human prion disease and relative risk associated with chronic wasting disease. Emerging Infectious Disease Journal. 12(10). < http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1210.060019>. Accessed 10 Apr 2012.
Miller, M. M., H. M. Swanson, L. L. Wolfe, F. G. Quartarone, S. L. Huwer, C. H. Southwick, P. M. Lukacs. 2008. Lions and Prions and Deer Demise. PLoS ONE. 3(12):e4019.
Miller, W., E. S. Williams, N. T. Hobbs, L. L. Wolfe. 2004. Environmental sources of prion transmission in mule deer. Emerging Infectious Disease Journal. 10(6). <http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/10/6/04-0010.htm>. 10 Apr 2012.
Needham, M. D., J. Vaske, M. P. Donnelly and M. J. Manfredo. 2007. Hunting specialization and its relationship to participation in response to chronic wasting disease. Journal of Leisure Research. 39(3):413-437.
Needham, M. D., J. J. Vaske, and J. D. Petit. 2017. Risk Sensitivity and Hunter Perceptions of Chronic Wasting Disease Risk and Other Hunting, Wildlife, and Health Risks. Human Dimensions of Wildlife. 22(3):197-216. DOI: 10.1080/10871209.2017.1298011.
Petchenik, J. B. 2003. Chronic wasting disease in Wisconsin and the 2002 hunting season: gun deer hunters’ first response. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, Bureau of Integrated Science Services, Madison, Wisonsin, USA.
Pirisinu L., L. Tran, B. Chiappini, I. Vanni, M. A. Di Bari, G. Vaccari, et al. 2018. Novel type of chronic wasting disease detected in moose (Alces alces), Norway. Emerging Infectious Disease Journal. 24(12). https://doi.org/10.3201/eid2412.180702
Race, B., K. D. Meade-White, M. W. Miller, K. D. Barbian, R. Rubenstein, G. LaFauci. 2009. Susceptibilities of nonhuman primates to chronic wasting disease. Emerging Infectious Disease Journal. 15(9). http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/15/9/09-0253.htm>. Accessed 4 April 2012.
Sandberg, M. K. , H. Al-Doujaily, C. .J. Sigurdson, M. Glatzel, C. O’Malley, C. Powell, E. A. Asante, J. M. Linehan, S. Brandner, J. D. F. Wadsworth, and J. Collinge. 2010. Chronic wasting disease prions are not transmissible to transgenic mice overexpressing human prion protein. Journal of General Virology. 91:2651-2657.
Saunders, S. E., S. L. Bartelt-Hunt, J. C. Bartz. 2012. Occurrence, transmission, and zoonotic potential of chronic wasting disease. Emerging Infectious Disease Journal. 18(3). http://dx.doi.org/10.3201/eid1803.110685. Accessed 4 April 2012.
Sigurdson, C. J. 2008. A prion disease of cervids: chronic wasting disease. Veterinary Research. 39(4):41.
Sleeman, J., C. Gillin. 2012. Ills in the pipeline: emerging infectious diseases and wildlife. The Wildlife Professional. 6(1):28-32.
Sohn, H., Y. Lee, M. Kim, E. Yun, H. Kim, W. Lee, D. Tark, and I. Cho. 2011. Chronic wasting disease (CWD) outbreaks and surveillance program in the Republic of Korea. Page 3 in Proceedings of the Prion 2011, Pre-congress Workshop: Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies in animals and their environment, 16 May 2011, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Vaske, J., L. Shelby, M. Needham. 2009. Preparing for the next disease: the human-wildlife connection. Pages 244-261 in M. J. Manfredo, J. J. Vaske, P. J. Brown, D. J. Decker, and E. A. Duke, editors, Wildlife and Society: The Science of Human Dimensions. Island Press, Washington D.C., USA.
Wang, F., X. Wang, C. G. Yuan, J. Ma. 2010. Generating a prion with bacterially expressed recombinant prion protein. Science. 327:1132-1135.
Wasserber, G., E. E. Osnas, R. E. Rolley, and M.D. Samuel. 2009 Host culling as an adaptive management tool for chronic wasting disease in white-tailed deer: a modeling study. Journal of Applied Ecology. 46:457-466.
Wyoming Game and Fish Department. 2012. Hunting season justification for the South Converse mule deer herd unit. http://gf.state.wy.us/web2011/wildlife-1000287.aspx Accessed 17 April 2012.
Williams, E. S. 2005. Chronic wasting disease. Veterinary Pathology. 42:530-549.
World Health Organization [WHO]. 2000. Proceedings of the meeting of World Health Organization consultation on public health and animal transmissible spongiform encephalopathies: Epidemiology, risk, and research requirements. Geneva, Switzerland.
Zimmer, N. P., P. C. Boxall, and W. L. Adamowicz. 2012. The impacts of chronic wasting disease and its management on recreational hunters. Canadian Journal of Agricultural Economics. 60:71-92.
16 | Page

**Mudslinger** · 04-22-2019, 11:53 AM

Thanks!

**bmac** · 04-22-2019, 12:04 PM

Might not be popular for some, but need to stop the spread.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Longue Carabine** · 04-22-2019, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by bmac View Post

Might not be popular for some, but need to stop the spread.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Agreed.

**SaltwaterSlick** · 04-22-2019, 01:53 PM

I don't trust ANYTHING the current commission says/posts/writes... They have proven themselves to be totally corrupt and shown to make decisions based on political influence and lobbying of special interest rather than sound use of scientific data and what's in the best interest for our natural resources...

**Jen-Man** · 04-22-2019, 04:11 PM