Health knowledge made personal
Join this community!
› Share page:
Go
Search posts:

TAHC Proposes Modifications to Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) repeal and replace Section 40.5

Posted Feb 20 2013 1:51pm
 
 
TAHC Proposes Modifications to Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) repeal and replace Section 40.5
 
 
 
 
 
 
PRESS RELEASE



February 20, 2013




For Immediate Release Contact: Leisa Fletcher Communications and Public Relations Assistant (512) 719-0710 Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC)




TAHC Proposes Modifications to Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), Fever Tick and Swine Pseudorabies Rules




AUSTIN - The Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) is accepting comments on rules proposed at the January 15, 2013, Commission meeting. The proposals are to amend Chapter 40, entitled "Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD)", Chapter 41, entitled "Fever Ticks", and Chapter 55, entitled "Swine". These rules are published in the Texas Register with a comment period of 30 days. The comment period for these proposals ends on Monday, March 4, 2013, at 5:00 p.m.




The proposed amendment to Chapter 40 "Chronic Wasting Disease" is to repeal and replace Section 40.5 "Elk Testing Requirements" with a new Section 40.5 "Movement Requirements for CWD Susceptible Species". The purpose of this rule is to revise the current surveillance requirements for intrastate movement of elk to include red deer and Sika deer. The rule as proposed will require that these susceptible species participate in the program and test 20% of all mortalities. For this program, the test age is set at 16 months and resembles the program administered by the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department's white-tail deer breeder program.




snip...










The Texas Animal Health Commission (commission) proposes new §40.5, concerning Movement Requirements for CWD Susceptible Species, in Chapter 40, which is entitled “Chronic Wasting Disease”. The commission is also proposing the repeal of the existing §40.5, concerning Testing Requirements for Elk. The new section is for the purpose of revising the current surveillance requirements for the state’s intrastate movement of elk to include exotic livestock, which are susceptible to Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD).




The commission has recently been addressing a number of different CWD regulations and agency actions in response to a number of recent developments involving CWD. The commission has adopted changes to the commission’s CWD voluntary program in response to the federal program as discussed below. The commission has also recently authorized the Executive Director to designate areas of the state as being at a high risk for CWD based on disclosure of any positive animals. This measure is in order to try and protect these animal resources within the state.





The commission proposes to modify the current CWD program to include red deer and Sika deer, and their hybrids, because of recent actions which have classified them as being a susceptible species for CWD. The purpose of the program was to establish testing surveillance for elk and now includes these added species. Based on the inclusion of red deer and Sika deer and other members of the cervid family as susceptible species, the commission is proposing this new section to be applicable to all cervid species known to be susceptible to CWD, excluding all mule deer, white-tailed deer, and native species under the jurisdiction of Texas Parks and Wildlife Department (TPWD).





As background, all breeders of white-tailed deer, through the direction of TPWD, participate in a CWD Monitoring program through either TPWD or the Commission. Because of this participation the state of Texas has done a significant amount of CWD surveillance testing of white-tailed deer without disclosing any positive deer. Surveillance testing is a key, critical competent to determine that if there is any disease present as well as helping to establish a prevalence number for how many animal maybe affected. This also helps to support our animal industries in having confidence in the health of their animals and makes them more marketable. Failure to perform adequate surveillance allows any disease to circulate unnoticed among animal host and spread the disease creating a greater disease problem and a far more difficult response task. In today’s current environment the mobility and transportation of agricultural animals throughout the state and country has greatly increased exposure to diseases and for the commission to not perform adequate disease surveillance for a disease that has national concerns would be inappropriate.





Though the white-tailed deer population in Texas has had significant surveillance, very few elk herds participated in a CWD monitoring program providing very little elk CWD testing surveillance. This had been a noted concern for a number of exotic livestock and deer associations because of the inequity of this situation. In implementing the first elk identification requirement in 2006 this was an issue of concern at that time but the commission believed, that for now the most appropriate initial approach to CWD surveillance in elk was through voluntary participation by owners of elk. The commission then required elk to participate in surveillance for CWD and was in put in place in 2010.





However, the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) interim final rule which modified the national CWD Herd Certification Program (HCP) to include red deer and Sika has caused the agency to revisit this program. The USDA action came after the first diagnosis of CWD in red deer. The commission announced in June that red deer and Sika deer must meet the same entry requirements as other cervid species such as elk and moose because they are considered “susceptible species” for CWD. The new entry rules for red deer and Sika deer require they originate from herds with at least five years of participation.





The commission has historically used a CWD task force of individuals that have provided guidance, counsel and recommendations to the commission regarding our CWD program. These members include members of Texas Deer Association (TDA), Exotic Wildlife Association (EWA), Texas Wildlife Association (TWA), members of the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory (TVMDL), USDA and TPWD along with noted private veterinary practitioners and wildlife biologists. Both groups have jointly convened three times in 2012 to discuss the various issues of concern for the CWD with the positive animals disclosed in West Texas, the changes to the CWD federal program and the need to modify the intrastate program for the exotic susceptible species to make it a more successful and involved surveillance program. Clearly all the changes denoted above have invoked serious concern on protecting our cervid industries and all those that could be affected. However, based on some of the concern raised by industries members, the commission felt that there was a need to modify the testing requirements to better encompass the various susceptible species but also to make sure that it is more equitable in application. A criticism of the present version is the belief that an animal must be sacrificed to comply. Unfortunately, with this test being mortality based there is a hardship for producers particularly for those who ranch a species that does not have a lot of test eligible mortalities, such as red deer or Sika deer. As such, the commission is proposing this program based on a percentage of mortalities. This mirrors what is being used as a surveillance scale similar to what is being used by white-tailed breeders who follow a CWD program through TPWD.





However, the critical part of such a program is some type of verifiable inventory in which to base mortalities. This also means that we need to establish some type of .verification system for establishing mortalities and the commission would like to get the industry’s comments on how to make such a system work. It is understood that the nature of some of the ranches is to release these animals to large enclosed pastures and they are not handled in the typical manner of livestock, but in order for the commission to develop an effective surveillance program to protect this state and their industry, it is necessary that these producers help partner with the agency to develop a verifiable inventory.





Subsection (a) is made up of definitions specifically for this section only. They include Captive CWD Susceptible Species, CWD Susceptible Species (FYI - all mule deer, white-tailed deer, and native species under the jurisdiction of the TPWD are excluded from this definition and application of this section), Free Ranging CWD Susceptible Species, Premises, and Transport.





Subsection (b) provides the surveillance requirements. In order to transport or move a CWD susceptible species live within the state the person controlling the CWD susceptible species shall meet one of the following requirements: they can test 20% percent of mortalities of all CWD susceptible species, maintained on a premise or have status with the commission in a herd certification program in accordance with the requirements of §40.3 of this chapter (relating to Herd Status Plans for Cervidae) or be moved directly from the premises where they were trapped or held to a recognized slaughter facility. A recognized slaughter facility is a slaughter facility operated under the state or federal meat inspection laws and regulations.




Subsection (c) describes premise identification and states that in order to move a CWD Susceptible Species from or to a premise the location must obtain a premises identification number (PIN).





Subsection (d) concerns inventory and provides that some type of annual inventory shall be verified/accounted/certified by commission personnel along with herd records that include a complete inventory of animals with documents showing all test results for those animals that died and were tested. This is a particular point of difficulty for the exotic species to manage because they do not inventory and manage these animals in that manner. Generally, they are released in a pasture situation but in order to have any type of successful surveillance program based of mortalities there needs to be some way to account or verify numbers which then authorizes movements. This is a particular area where the commission is requesting comments from affected groups or individuals that will help to create an adequate surveillance program based on how they maintain their inventory.





Subsection (e) outlines identification requirements and provides that these susceptible species moved or transported within the state shall be identified with an official identification device.





Subsection (f) concerns testing requirements and provides an alternative to the federal standard by being for animals that are 16 months of age or older. This also would allow the samples to be collected by a state or federal animal health official, an accredited veterinarian, or a Certified CWD Sample Collector. Tissue samples maybe either the obex or a retropharyngeal lymph node from each animal being tested.





Subsection (g) describes test reporting and subsection (h) describes movement reporting requirements. A movement request for all CWD susceptible species that are moved onto or off of premises shall be submitted to the commission, either in hard copy on forms provided or authorized by the commission, or an electronic copy.





Subsection (i) concerns record keeping which requires the buyer and seller to maintain records for all CWD susceptible species transported within the state or where there is a transfer of ownership, and provide those when requested by the commission.





Subsection (j), inspection, states that in order to authorize movement, a premise where CWD susceptible species are located may be inspected by the commission or authorized agents of the commission.





Subsection (k) provides dealer requirements to address issues related to brokers of the animals throughout the state and may maintain them at their premise before relocating them to a designation premise.





FISCAL NOTE





Mr. Sami Chadli, Director for Administration and Finance, Texas Animal Health Commission, has determined for the first five-year period the rules are in effect, there will be no significant additional fiscal implications for state or local government as a result of enforcing or administering the rules as we will use already appropriated resources to service these programs and with the fees that we assess for participation.in our herd certification program or for inspection of their inventory verification. An Economic Impact Statement (EIS) is required if the proposed rule has an adverse economic effect on micro businesses. The agency has evaluated the requirements and determined that there is an economic impact because the program establishes participation standards that do create a cost to comply, but also provide a benefit to those that participate. The purpose of the program is to provide standards and quality assurance that animals moving intrastate have been monitored and can be deemed low risk for having and potentially transporting a disease. Movement of animals creates a higher risk of exposure and transmission of a disease and therefore, merits required participation in a surveillance program because of the serious negative impact to the affected industries in the state as well as to any area where CWD is disclosed. The participation of CWD susceptible species, under the commission, is to provide surveillance and reduce the risk of animals being positive and exposing other animals. This program also equitably mirrors a surveillance program for white-tailed deer as all white-tailed breeder facilities within the state, at the direction of the TPWD, participate in a CWD monitoring program through either TPWD or the Commission. The purpose of the rules is to protect a very valuable resource in the wildlife cervids as well as those that are under private ownership. The impact of CWD exposure in herds in the state can greatly reduce the value of the animals causing a much greater adverse economic impact to these industries and resources.





PUBLIC BENEFIT NOTE





Mr. Chadli, has also determined that for each year of the first five years the rules are in effect, the public benefit anticipated as a result of enforcing the rules will be that exotic livestock are included as susceptible species are required to participate in a stronger surveillance system in order to create a surveillance safety net with safeguards to prevent spread of CWD to another part of the state or to a variety of herds.





LOCAL EMPLOYMENT IMPACT STATEMENT





In accordance with Texas Government Code §2001.022, this agency has determined that the proposed rule will not impact local economies and, therefore, did not file a request for a local employment impact statement with the Texas Workforce Commission.





TAKINGS ASSESSMENT





The agency has determined that the proposed governmental action will not affect private real property. The proposed rule is an activity related to the handling of animals, including requirements for testing, movement, inspection, identification, reporting of disease, and treatment, in accordance with 4 TAC §59.7, and is, therefore, compliant with the Private Real Property Preservation Act in Government Code, Chapter 2007.





REQUEST FOR COMMENT





Comments regarding the proposal may be submitted to Carol Pivonka, Texas Animal Health Commission, 2105 Kramer Lane, Austin, Texas 78758, by fax at (512) 719-0721 or by e-mail at “comments@tahc.state.tx.us ”.





STATUTORY AUTHORITY





The new section is proposed under the following statutory authority as found in Texas Agriculture Code §161.0541. The section provides that the commission by rule may establish a disease surveillance program for elk. Rules adopted under this section must: (1) require each person who moves elk in this state to have elk tested for chronic wasting disease or other diseases as determined by the commission; (2) be designed to protect the health of the elk population in this state; and (3) include provisions for testing, identification, transportation, and inspection under the disease surveillance program. The section also provides that a person commits an offense if the person knowingly violates a rule adopted by the commission under this section. Also, an offense under subsection (c) is a Class C misdemeanor unless it is shown on the trial of the offense that the defendant has previously been convicted of an offense under that subsection, in which event the offense is a Class B misdemeanor.





The commission is also vested by statute, §161.041(a), with the requirement to protect all livestock, domestic animals, and domestic fowl from disease. The commission is authorized, by §161.041(b), to act to eradicate or control any disease or agent of transmission for any disease that affects livestock. If the commission determines that a disease listed in §161.041 of this code or an agent of transmission of one of those diseases exists in a place in this state among livestock, or that livestock are exposed to one of those diseases or an agent of transmission of one of those diseases, the commission shall establish a quarantine on the affected animals or on the affected place. That is found in §161.061. As a control measure, the commission by rule may regulate the movement of animals. The commission may restrict the intrastate movement of animals even though the movement of the animals is unrestricted in interstate or international commerce. The commission may require testing, vaccination, or another epidemiologically sound procedure before or after animals are moved. That is found in §161.054. An agent of the commission is entitled to stop and inspect a shipment of animals or animal products being transported in this state in order to determine if the shipment originated from a quarantined area or herd; or determine if the shipment presents a danger to the public health or livestock industry through insect infestation or through a communicable or noncommunicable disease. That authority is found in §161.048. A person is presumed to control the animal if the person is the owner or lessee of the pen, pasture, or other place in which the animal is located and has control of that place; or exercises care or control over the animal. That is under §161.002.





Section 161.007 provides that if a veterinarian employed by the commission determines that a communicable disease exists among livestock, domestic animals, or domestic fowl or on certain premises or that livestock, domestic animals, or domestic fowl have been exposed to the agency of transmission of a communicable disease, the exposure or infection is considered to continue until the commission determines that the exposure or infection has been eradicated through methods prescribed by rule of the commission. Section 161.005 provides that the commission may authorize the executive director or another employee to sign written instruments on behalf of the commission. A written instrument, including a quarantine or written notice, signed under that authority has the same force and effect as if signed by the entire commission.





No other statutes, articles or codes are affected by the proposal.





40.5. Movement Requirements for CWD Susceptible Species.





(a) Definitions:





(1) Captive CWD Susceptible Species--A CWD susceptible species captured or privately or publicly maintained or held within a perimeter fence or confined area that is designed to retain the CWD susceptible species under normal conditions at all times with a height of eight feet or greater.





(2) CWD Susceptible Species--A cervid species determined to be susceptible to CWD, which means a species that has had a diagnosis of CWD confirmed by means of an official test conducted by a laboratory approved by USDA/APHIS). This includes North American elk or wapiti (Cervus Canadensis), red deer (Cervus elaphus), Sika deer (Cervus Nippon), moose (Alces alces), and any associated subspecies and hybrids. All mule deer and white-tailed deer and native species under the jurisdiction of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department are excluded from this definition and application of this section.





(3) Free Ranging CWD Susceptible Species--Any CWD susceptible species that is not captured or contained within a fence intended to retain CWD susceptible species under normal conditions at all times with a height of eight feet or greater.





(4) Premises--A physical location(s) which is contiguous, that is under common ownership or management, and represent a unique and describable geographic location.





(5) Transport--Movement of an animal from one non-contiguous property or premises to another.





(b) Surveillance Requirements. In order to transport or move a CWD susceptible species live within the state the person controlling the CWD susceptible species shall meet one of the following:





(1) test 20% percent of mortalities of all CWD susceptible species, maintained on a premise; or





(2) have status with the Commission in a herd certification program in accordance with the requirements of §40.3 of this chapter (relating to Herd Status Plans for Cervidae); or





(3) be moved directly from the premises where they were trapped or held to a recognized slaughter facility. A recognized slaughter facility is a slaughter facility operated under the state or federal meat inspection laws and regulations.





(c) Premise Identification. In order to move a CWD Susceptible Species from or to a premise which has surveillance, as required under subsection (b) of this section, the location must obtain a “Premises identification number (PIN)”. A PIN means a unique official seven character alpha numeric identification code issued under this chapter to identify a specific and unique premises. Separate geographic physical locations that are under common ownership and management and on which co-mingling of animals occurs may be registered as one premises.





(d) Inventory. An annual inventory shall be verified/accounted/certified by TAHC personnel. The herd owner shall maintain herd records that include a complete inventory of animals with documents showing all test results for those animals that died and were tested.





(e) Identification Requirements. CWD susceptible species moved or transported within the state shall be identified with an official identification device, which may include an eartag that conforms to the USDA alphanumeric national uniform ear tagging system, which is a visible and legible animal identification number (AIN) or other identification methods approved by the Commission, including a RFID Device.





(f) Testing Requirements. CWD test samples shall be collected and submitted to an official laboratory for CWD diagnosis using a United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) validated test for animals that are 16 months of age or older and from the same population as the CWD susceptible species being moved. Test reporting shall be directed to the appropriate TAHC Regional Office. The samples may be collected by a state or federal animal health official, an accredited veterinarian, or a Certified CWD Sample Collector. Tissue samples maybe either the obex or a retropharyngeal lymph node from each animal being tested.





(g) Test reporting. Test results shall be directed to the Commission by either writing to Texas Animal Health Commission, c/o CWD Susceptible Species Reporting, P.O. Box 12966, Austin, Texas 78711-2966; or by fax to (512) 719-0729; or by e-mail to CWD_movement@tahc.texas.gov .





(h) Movement Reporting Requirements. A movement request for all CWD susceptible species that are moved onto or off of premises shall be submitted to the Commission, either in hard copy on forms provided or authorized by the Commission, or an electronic copy. The person moving the CWD susceptible species must have documentation with the CWD susceptible species being moved to show compliance with the requirements of this subsection. A copy of this documentation must be provided to any market selling these species. Such report shall be submitted within 48 hours of the movement. Movement reporting shall be directed to the Commission by either writing to Texas Animal Health Commission, c/o CWD Susceptible Species Reporting, P.O. Box 12966, Austin, Texas 78711-2966; or by fax to (512) 719-0729; or by e-mail to CWD_movement@tahc.texas.gov. The movement report shall include the following information:





(1) PIN for premises of origin;





(2) PIN for premises of the destination;





(3) Number of CWD susceptible species being moved;





(4) Official individual identification device number;





(5) Other official or unofficial identification numbers;





(6) Age/Gender; and




(7) Test results from the testing laboratory.





(i) Record Keeping. The buyer and seller must maintain records for all CWD susceptible species transported within the state or where there is a transfer of ownership, and provide those to Commission personnel upon request. Records required to be kept under the provisions of this section shall be maintained for not less than five years. The records shall include the following information:





(1) Owner's name;





(2) Location where the animal was sold or purchased;





(3) Official ID and/or Ranch tag (additional field for retag);





(4) Gender/age of animal;





(5) Source of animal (if purchased addition);





(6) Movement to other premises; and






(7) Disposition.





(j) Inspection. In order to authorize movement, a premise where CWD susceptible species are located may be inspected by the Commission or authorized agents of the Commission.






(k) Dealer Requirements. A dealer is a person engaged in the business of buying or selling CWD susceptible species in commerce on the person’s own account, as an employee or agent of a vendor, purchaser, or both, or on a commission basis. To maintain separate herd status for the animals a dealer sells, a dealer shall maintain separate herd facilities; separate water sources; there shall be at least 30 feet between the perimeter fencing around separate herds; and no commingling of animals may occur. Movement of animals between herds must be recorded as if they were separately owned herds. A dealer shall maintain records in accordance with this section.















Monday, February 11, 2013






TEXAS CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE CWD Four New Positives Found in Trans Pecos















can’t say I did not try and warn them. ...








2001 – 2004





*** IF you look at the area around the NM WSMR where the CWD cluster was and where it borders TEXAS, that ecoregion is called Trans Pecos region. Seems if my Geography and my Ciphering is correct ;-) that region only tested 55% of it's goal. THE most important area on the MAP and they only test some 96 samples, this in an area that has found some 7 positive animals? NOW if we look at the only other border where these deer from NM could cross the border into TEXAS, this area is called the High Plains ecoregion, and again, we find that the sampling for CWD was pathetic. HERE we find that only 9% of it's goal of CWD sampling was met, only 16 samples were tested from some 175 that were suppose to be sampled.







-------- Original Message --------



Subject: CWD SURVEILLANCE SAMPLE SUBMISSIONS TEXAS ?



Date: Mon, 16 Aug 2004 15:09:58 –0500



From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy






Greetings List members,






as i stated in my previous email;











>> CWD has not been detected in Texas, >




> > SADLY, they have not tested enough from the total population to




> know if CWD is in Texas or not. time will tell though. IF they get




> serious about finding and documenting CWD in sufficient numbers




> here in TEXAS, sadly, i am afraid they will find it. ITs already




> at NM, Texas border, TSEs knows no borders. HOWEVER,




> with the recent finding of a CNS cow with high potential for BSE/TSE




> in TEXAS, with one high official over ruling another official that wanted




> it tested, with the high official winning out and the damn thing going




> to render without being tested, head spinal cord and all. THIS weighs




> heavy on the credibility of any surveillance for any TSE in TEXAS,




> and speaks a great deal for the over all surveillance of TSE in the




> USA...TSS








SO, i thought i would just see where these Ecoregions were, and just how the CWD testing was distributed. YOU would think that with the cluster of CWD bordering TEXAS at the WPMR in NM, you would have thought this would be where the major CWD testing samples were to have been taken? wrong! let's have a look at the sample testing. here is map of CWD in NM WPMR bordering TEXAS;







NEW MEXICO 7 POSITIVE CWD WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE MAP










NEXT, let's have a look at the overall distribution of CWD in Free-Ranging Cervids and see where the CWD cluster in NM WSMR borders TEXAS;


Current Distribution of Chronic Wasting Disease in Free-Ranging Cervids










NOW, the MAP of the Exoregion where the samples were taken to test for CWD;



CWD SURVEILLANCE SAMPLE SUBMISSIONS TEXAS














Ecoregions of TEXAS










***



*** IF you look at the area around the NM WSMR where the CWD cluster was and where it borders TEXAS, that ecoregion is called Trans Pecos region. Seems if my Geography and my Ciphering is correct ;-) that region only tested 55% of it's goal. THE most important area on the MAP and they only test some 96 samples, this in an area that has found some 7 positive animals? NOW if we look at the only other border where these deer from NM could cross the border into TEXAS, this area is called the High Plains ecoregion, and again, we find that the sampling for CWD was pathetic. HERE we find that only 9% of it's goal of CWD sampling was met, only 16 samples were tested from some 175 that were suppose to be sampled.







AS i said before;







> SADLY, they have not tested enough from the total population to





> know if CWD is in Texas or not.








BUT now, I will go one step further and state categorically that they are not trying to find it. just the opposite it seems, they are waiting for CWD to find them, as with BSE/TSE in cattle, and it will eventually...







TSS




snip...







2001 - 2002


Subject: Texas Borders Reopened for Importing Black-Tailed Deer & Elk New Entry Regulations in Effect $ CWD TESTING STATISTICS ?


Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2002 17:18:16 –0700


From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."


Reply-To: Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy


To: BSE-L@uni-karlsruhe.de


######## Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy #########


NEWS RELEASE


Texas Animal Health Commission


Box l2966 * Austin, Texas 78711 * (800) 550-8242 * FAX (512) 719-0719


Linda Logan, DVM, PhD * Executive Director


For info, contact Carla Everett, information officer, at 1-800-550-8242, ext. 710, or ceverett@tahc.state.tx.us


snip...


TEXAS OLD STATISTICS BELOW FOR PAST CWD TESTING;


Subject: CWD testing in Texas


Date: Sun, 25 Aug 2002 19:45:14 –0500


From: Kenneth Waldrup


To: flounder@wt.net


CC: mcoats@tahc.state.tx.us

 

Dear Dr. Singletary,




In Fiscal Year 2001, seven deer from Texas were tested by the National Veterinary Services Laboratory (NVSL) for CWD (5 fallow deer and 2 white-tailed deer). In Fiscal Year 2002, seven elk from Texas were tested at NVSL (no deer). During these two years, an additional six elk and one white-tailed deer were tested at the Texas Veterinary Medical Diagnostic Laboratory (TVMDL). In Fiscal Year 2002, four white-tailed deer (free-ranging clinical suspects) and at least eight other white-tailed deer have been tested at TVMDL. One elk has been tested at NVSL. All of these animals have been found negative for CWD. Dr. Jerry Cooke of the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department also has records of 601 clinically ill white-tailed deer which were necropsied at Texas A&M during the late 1960's and early 1970's, and no spongiform encepalopathies were noted.


Thank you for your consideration.


Ken Waldrup, DVM, PhD Texas Animal Health Commission






========================






TEXAS CWD STATUS


Captive Cervids


There have been no reported CWD infections of captive elk or deer in Texas. There is currently no mandatory surveillance program for susceptible cervids kept on game farms, although, there has been voluntary surveillance since 1999, which requires owners of participating herds to maintain an annual herd inventory and submit samples for all mortalities of animals over 16 months of age.


snip...


SO, i thought i would just see where these Ecoregions were, and just how the CWD testing was distributed. YOU would think that with the cluster of CWD bordering TEXAS at the WPMR in NM, you would have thought this would be where the major CWD testing samples were to have been taken? wrong! let's have a look at the sample testing. here is map of CWD in NM WPMR bordering TEXAS;






NEW MEXICO 7 POSITIVE CWD WHITE SANDS MISSILE RANGE MAP












snip...















can't say i did not try and warn them. ...TSS






Monday, February 11, 2013



TEXAS CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE CWD Four New Positives Found in Trans Pecos













Thursday, December 27, 2012



CWD TSE PRION, dr. deer, shooting pen type game farms and ranchers, Texas, TAHC, Houston Chronicle, all silent about disease ?













Thursday, December 13, 2012



HUNTERS FEELING THE HEAT Houston Chronicle December 13, 2012 OUTDOORS not talking about CWD in Texas











Wednesday, November 07, 2012



Chronic Wasting Disease CWD, Texas, Houston Chronicle Shannon Thomkins 1998 - 2012 what happened ??











Thursday, July 12, 2012



CWD aka MAD DEER, ELK DISEASE TEXAS HOUSTON CHRONICLE Wednesday, July 11, 2012














Friday, August 31, 2012


COMMITTEE ON CAPTIVE WILDLIFE AND ALTERNATIVE LIVESTOCK and CWD 2009-2012 a review









Tuesday, June 05, 2012


Captive Deer Breeding Legislation Overwhelmingly Defeated During 2012 Legislative Session









Tuesday, December 18, 2012


*** A Growing Threat How deer breeding could put public trust wildlife at risk











Friday, February 08, 2013


*** Behavior of Prions in the Environment: Implications for Prion Biology










Friday, November 09, 2012


*** Chronic Wasting Disease CWD in cervidae and transmission to other species









Sunday, November 11, 2012


*** Susceptibilities of Nonhuman Primates to Chronic Wasting Disease November 2012









Friday, December 14, 2012


Susceptibility Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in wild cervids to Humans 2005 - December 14, 2012










Friday, February 15, 2013


PENNSYLVANIA CWD UPDATE 9 FARMS ARE STILL UNDER QUARANTINE










Thursday, May 31, 2012


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











Tuesday, July 10, 2012


Chronic Wasting Disease Detected in Far West Texas














Saturday, July 07, 2012



TEXAS Animal Health Commission Accepting Comments on Chronic Wasting Disease Rule Proposal



Considering the seemingly high CWD prevalence rate in the Sacramento and Hueco Mountains of New Mexico, CWD may be well established in the population and in the environment in Texas at this time.











Tuesday, July 10, 2012



Dr. James C. Kroll Texas deer czar final report on Wisconsin












Friday, June 01, 2012



*** TEXAS DEER CZAR TO WISCONSIN ASK TO EXPLAIN COMMENTS












Thursday, March 29, 2012



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












2011 – 2012



Friday, October 28, 2011



CWD Herd Monitoring Program to be Enforced Jan. 2012 TEXAS



Greetings TAHC et al,



A kind greetings from Bacliff, Texas.



In reply to ;




Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) Announcement October 27, 2011



I kindly submit the following ;











Wednesday, June 13, 2012



TAHC Modifies Entry Requirements Effective Immediately for Cervids DUE TO CWD



FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE












Monday, March 26, 2012



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












Monday, March 26, 2012



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












Saturday, June 09, 2012



USDA Establishes a Herd Certification Program for Chronic Wasting Disease in the United States











LANCET INFECTIOUS DISEASE JOURNAL


Volume 3, Number 8 01 August 2003


Previous


Next


Newsdesk


Tracking spongiform encephalopathies in North America


Xavier Bosch


My name is Terry S Singeltary Sr, and I live in Bacliff, Texas. I lost my mom to hvCJD (Heidenhain variant CJD) and have been searching for answers ever since. What I have found is that we have not been told the truth. CWD in deer and elk is a small portion of a much bigger problem.


49-year-old Singeltary is one of a number of people who have remained largely unsatisfied after being told that a close relative died from a rapidly progressive dementia compatible with spontaneous Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). So he decided to gather hundreds of documents on transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSE) and realised that if Britons could get variant CJD from bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), Americans might get a similar disorder from chronic wasting disease (CWD)the relative of mad cow disease seen among deer and elk in the USA. Although his feverish search did not lead him to the smoking gun linking CWD to a similar disease in North American people, it did uncover a largely disappointing situation.


Singeltary was greatly demoralised at the few attempts to monitor the occurrence of CJD and CWD in the USA. Only a few states have made CJD reportable. Human and animal TSEs should be reportable nationwide and internationally, he complained in a letter to the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA 2003; 285: 733). I hope that the CDC does not continue to expect us to still believe that the 85% plus of all CJD cases which are sporadic are all spontaneous, without route or source.


Until recently, CWD was thought to be confined to the wild in a small region in Colorado. But since early 2002, it has been reported in other areas, including Wisconsin, South Dakota, and the Canadian province of Saskatchewan. Indeed, the occurrence of CWD in states that were not endemic previously increased concern about a widespread outbreak and possible transmission to people and cattle.


To date, experimental studies have proven that the CWD agent can be transmitted to cattle by intracerebral inoculation and that it can cross the mucous membranes of the digestive tract to initiate infection in lymphoid tissue before invasion of the central nervous system. Yet the plausibility of CWD spreading to people has remained elusive.


Getting data on TSEs in the USA from the government is like pulling teeth, Singeltary argues. You get it when they want you to have it, and only what they want you to have.




SNIP...FULL TEXT ;








now, a few things to ponder about those said double fences that will supposedly stop those deer from escaping.


what about water that drains from any of these game farms. surrounding water tables etc., are the double fences going to stop the water from becoming contaminated? where does it drain? who's drinking it?





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


65


Tracy A. Nichols*1,2, Bruce Pulford1, Christy Wyckoff1,2, Crystal Meyerett1, Brady Michel1, Kevin Gertig3, Jean E. Jewell4, Glenn C. Telling5 and M.D. Zabel1 1Department of Microbiology, Immunology and Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and Biomedical Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA 2National Wildlife Research Center, Wildlife Services, United States Department of Agriculture, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521, USA 3Fort Collins Water and Treatment Operations, Fort Collins, Colorado, 80521, USA 4 Department of Veterinary Sciences, Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, 82070, USA 5Department of Microbiology, Immunology, Molecular Genetics and Neurology, Sanders Brown Center on Aging, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky, 40536, USA * Corresponding author- tracy.a.nichols@aphis.usda.gov


Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is the only known transmissible spongiform encephalopathy affecting free-ranging wildlife. Experimental and epidemiological data indicate that CWD can be transmitted horizontally and via blood and saliva, although the exact mode of natural transmission remains unknown. Substantial evidence suggests that prions can persist in the environment, implicating it as a potential prion reservoir and transmission vehicle. CWD- positive animals can contribute to environmental prion load via biological materials including saliva, blood, urine and feces, shedding several times their body weight in possibly infectious excreta in their lifetime, as well as through decomposing carcasses. Sensitivity limitations of conventional assays hamper evaluation of environmental prion loads in water. Here we show the ability of serial protein misfolding cyclic amplification (sPMCA) to amplify minute amounts of CWD prions in spiked water samples at a 1:1 x106 , and protease-resistant prions in environmental and municipal-processing water samples from a CWD endemic area. Detection of CWD prions correlated with increased total organic carbon in water runoff from melting winter snowpack. 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 ;


















what about rodents there from? 4 American rodents are susceptible to CWD to date. are those double fences going to stop these rodents from escaping these game farms once becoming exposed to CWD?




Chronic Wasting Disease Susceptibility of Four North American Rodents




Chad J. Johnson1*, Jay R. Schneider2, Christopher J. Johnson2, Natalie A. Mickelsen2, Julia A. Langenberg3, Philip N. Bochsler4, Delwyn P. Keane4, Daniel J. Barr4, and Dennis M. Heisey2 1University of Wisconsin School of Veterinary Medicine, Department of Comparative Biosciences, 1656 Linden Drive, Madison WI 53706, USA 2US Geological Survey, National Wildlife Health Center, 6006 Schroeder Road, Madison WI 53711, USA 3Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources, 101 South Webster Street, Madison WI 53703, USA 4Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Lab, 445 Easterday Lane, Madison WI 53706, USA *Corresponding author email: cjohnson@svm.vetmed.wisc.edu


We intracerebrally challenged four species of native North American rodents that inhabit locations undergoing cervid chronic wasting disease (CWD) epidemics. The species were: deer mice (Peromyscus maniculatus), white-footed mice (P. leucopus), meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus), and red-backed voles (Myodes gapperi). The inocula were prepared from the brains of hunter-harvested white-tailed deer from Wisconsin that tested positive for CWD. Meadow voles proved to be most susceptible, with a median incubation period of 272 days. Immunoblotting and immunohistochemistry confirmed the presence of PrPd in the brains of all challenged meadow voles. Subsequent passages in meadow voles lead to a significant reduction in incubation period. The disease progression in red-backed voles, which are very closely related to the European bank vole (M. glareolus) which have been demonstrated to be sensitive to a number of TSEs, was slower than in meadow voles with a median incubation period of 351 days. We sequenced the meadow vole and red-backed vole Prnp genes and found three amino acid (AA) differences outside of the signal and GPI anchor sequences. Of these differences (T56-, G90S, S170N; read-backed vole:meadow vole), S170N is particularly intriguing due its postulated involvement in "rigid loop" structure and CWD susceptibility. Deer mice did not exhibit disease signs until nearly 1.5 years post-inoculation, but appear to be exhibiting a high degree of disease penetrance. White-footed mice have an even longer incubation period but are also showing high penetrance. Second passage experiments show significant shortening of incubation periods. Meadow voles in particular appear to be interesting lab models for CWD. These rodents scavenge carrion, and are an important food source for many predator species. Furthermore, these rodents enter human and domestic livestock food chains by accidental inclusion in grain and forage. Further investigation of these species as potential hosts, bridge species, and reservoirs of CWD is required.










please see ;









Oral.29: Susceptibility of Domestic Cats to CWD Infection



Amy Nalls, Nicholas J. Haley, Jeanette Hayes-Klug, Kelly Anderson, Davis M. Seelig, Dan S. Bucy, Susan L. Kraft, Edward A. Hoover and Candace K. Mathiason† Colorado State University; Fort Collins, CO USA†Presenting author; Email: ckm@lamar.colostate.edu



Domestic and non-domestic cats have been shown to be susceptible to one prion disease, feline spongiform encephalopathy (FSE), thought to be transmitted through consumption of bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) contaminated meat. Because domestic and free ranging felids scavenge cervid carcasses, including those in CWD affected areas, we evaluated the susceptibility of domestic cats to CWD infection experimentally. Groups of n = 5 cats each were inoculated either intracerebrally (IC) or orally (PO) with CWD deer brain homogenate. Between 40–43 months following IC inoculation, two cats developed mild but progressive symptoms including weight loss, anorexia, polydipsia, patterned motor behaviors and ataxia—ultimately mandating euthanasia. Magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) on the brain of one of these animals (vs. two age-matched controls) performed just before euthanasia revealed increased ventricular system volume, more prominent sulci, and T2 hyperintensity deep in the white matter of the frontal hemisphere and in cortical grey distributed through the brain, likely representing inflammation or gliosis. PrPRES and widely distributed peri-neuronal vacuoles were demonstrated in the brains of both animals by immunodetection assays. No clinical signs of TSE have been detected in the remaining primary passage cats after 80 months pi. Feline-adapted CWD was sub-passaged into groups (n=4 or 5) of cats by IC, PO, and IP/SQ routes. Currently, at 22 months pi, all five IC inoculated cats are demonstrating abnormal behavior including increasing aggressiveness, pacing, and hyper responsiveness. Two of these cats have developed rear limb ataxia. Although the limited data from this ongoing study must be considered preliminary, they raise the potential for cervid-to-feline transmission in nature. www.landesbioscience.com Prion















UPDATED CORRESPONDENCE FROM AUTHORS OF THIS STUDY I.E. COLBY, PRUSINER ET AL, ABOUT MY CONCERNS OF THE DISCREPANCY BETWEEN THEIR FIGURES AND MY FIGURES OF THE STUDIES ON CWD TRANSMISSION TO CATTLE ;


----- Original Message -----


From: David Colby


To: flounder9@verizon.net


Cc: stanley@XXXXXXXX


Sent: Tuesday, March 01, 2011 8:25 AM


Subject: Re: FW: re-Prions David W. Colby1,* and Stanley B. Prusiner1,2 + Author Affiliations



Dear Terry Singeltary,



Thank you for your correspondence regarding the review article Stanley Prusiner and I recently wrote for Cold Spring Harbor Perspectives. Dr. Prusiner asked that I reply to your message due to his busy schedule. We agree that the transmission of CWD prions to beef livestock would be a troubling development and assessing that risk is important. In our article, we cite a peer-reviewed publication reporting confirmed cases of laboratory transmission based on stringent criteria. The less stringent criteria for transmission described in the abstract you refer to lead to the discrepancy between your numbers and ours and thus the interpretation of the transmission rate. We stand by our assessment of the literature--namely that the transmission rate of CWD to bovines appears relatively low, but we recognize that even a low transmission rate could have important implications for public health and we thank you for bringing attention to this matter.



Warm Regards, David Colby



--


David Colby, PhDAssistant ProfessorDepartment of Chemical EngineeringUniversity of Delaware





====================END...TSS==============




SNIP...SEE FULL TEXT ;










UPDATED DATA ON 2ND CWD STRAIN


Wednesday, September 08, 2010


CWD PRION CONGRESS SEPTEMBER 8-11 2010








Friday, December 14, 2012


Susceptibility of domestic cats to chronic wasting disease









Thursday, September 10, 2009



Experimental oral transmission of CWD to red deer (Cervus elaphus elaphus): early detection and late stage distribution of protease-resistant protein











Tuesday, June 19, 2012



Experimental Oral Transmission of Chronic Wasting Disease to Reindeer (Rangifer tarandus tarandus)











Monday, June 18, 2012



natural cases of CWD in eight Sika deer (Cervus nippon) and five Sika/red deer crossbreeds captive Korea and Experimental oral transmission to red deer (Cervus elaphus elaphus)













Thursday, February 14, 2013



Alberta’s first documented case of CWD in a moose was confirmed in January 2013









Wednesday, November 14, 2012


PENNSYLVANIA 2012 THE GREAT ESCAPE OF CWD INVESTIGATION MOVES INTO LOUISIANA and INDIANA










Monday, February 04, 2013



CWD UPDATE DEER FARMS CAPTIVE SHOOTING PEN OWNERS Iowa SENATE FILE 59 BY Senator Dick L. Dearden













just saying...





kind regards,

terry




Post a comment
Write a comment: