[House Hearing, 107 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
=======================================================================
JOINT OVERSIGHT HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND
FOREST HEALTH
joint with the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION,
WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
of the
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
May 16, 2002
__________
Serial No. 107-117
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Resources
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/
house
or
Committee address: http://resourcescommittee.house.gov
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
79-658 WASHINGTON : 2002
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON RESOURCES
JAMES V. HANSEN, Utah, Chairman
NICK J. RAHALL II, West Virginia, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska, George Miller, California
Vice Chairman Edward J. Markey, Massachusetts
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
Jim Saxton, New Jersey Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon
Elton Gallegly, California Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Samoa
Joel Hefley, Colorado Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Wayne T. Gilchrest, Maryland Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Ken Calvert, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Scott McInnis, Colorado Calvin M. Dooley, California
Richard W. Pombo, California Robert A. Underwood, Guam
Barbara Cubin, Wyoming Adam Smith, Washington
George Radanovich, California Donna M. Christensen, Virgin
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North Islands
Carolina Ron Kind, Wisconsin
Mac Thornberry, Texas Jay Inslee, Washington
Chris Cannon, Utah Grace F. Napolitano, California
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania Tom Udall, New Mexico
Bob Schaffer, Colorado Mark Udall, Colorado
Jim Gibbons, Nevada Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Greg Walden, Oregon Hilda L. Solis, California
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Brad Carson, Oklahoma
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
Tom Osborne, Nebraska
Jeff Flake, Arizona
Dennis R. Rehberg, Montana
Tim Stewart, Chief of Staff
Lisa Pittman, Chief Counsel/Deputy Chief of Staff
Steven T. Petersen, Deputy Chief Counsel
Michael S. Twinchek, Chief Clerk
James H. Zoia, Democrat Staff Director
Jeffrey P. Petrich, Democrat Chief Counsel
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON FORESTS AND FOREST HEALTH
SCOTT McINNIS, Colorado, Chairman
JAY INSLEE, Washington, Ranking Democrat Member
John J. Duncan, Jr., Tennessee Dale E. Kildee, Michigan
John E. Peterson, Pennsylvania, Tom Udall, New Mexico
Vice Chairman Mark Udall, Colorado
Mark E. Souder, Indiana Rush D. Holt, New Jersey
Michael K. Simpson, Idaho Anibal Acevedo-Vila, Puerto Rico
Thomas G. Tancredo, Colorado Betty McCollum, Minnesota
J.D. Hayworth, Arizona
C.L. ``Butch'' Otter, Idaho
------
SUBCOMMITTE ON FISHERIES CONSERVATION, WILDLIFE AND OCEANS
WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland, Chairman
ROBERT A. UNDERWOOD, Guam, Ranking Democrat Member
Don Young, Alaska Eni F.H. Faleomavaega, American
W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin, Louisiana Samoa
Jim Saxton, New Jersey, Neil Abercrombie, Hawaii
Vice Chairman Solomon P. Ortiz, Texas
Richard W. Pombo, California Frank Pallone, Jr., New Jersey
Walter B. Jones, Jr., North
Carolina
------
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on May 16, 2002..................................... 1
Statement of Members:
Allard, Hon. Wayne, a United States Senator from the State of
Colorado................................................... 18
Prepared statement of.................................... 20
Barrett, Hon. Thomas M., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Wisconsin,.................................... 60
Prepared statement of.................................... 61
Feingold, Hon. Russell, a United States Senator from the
State of Wisconsin, Prepared statement of.................. 8
Gilchrest, Hon. Wayne T. a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, Prepared statement of............... 8
Kind, Hon. Ron, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Wisconsin............................................... 5
McInnis, Hon. Scott, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Colorado.......................................... 1
Prepared statement of.................................... 4
Statement of Witnesses:
Butler, Dr. James G., Deputy Under Secretary, Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture........ 73
Prepared statement of.................................... 76
George, Russell, Director, Division of Wildlife, Colorado
Department of Natural Resources............................ 33
Prepared statement of.................................... 35
Response to questions submitted for the record...........
Groat, Charles G., Director, U.S. Geological Survey, U.S.
Department of the Interior................................. 66
Prepared statement of.................................... 69
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 71
McCallum, Hon. Scott, Governor, State of Wisconsin........... 22
Prepared statement of.................................... 24
Miller, Michael, D.V.M., Wildlife Veterinarian, Wildlife
Research Center, Division of Wildlife, Colorado Department
of Natural Resources....................................... 9
Prepared statement of.................................... 14
Morrison, Bruce, Assistant Administrator, Wildlife Division,
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission......................... 44
Prepared statement of.................................... 46
Pacelle, Wayne, Senior Vice President for Communications and
Government Affairs, The Humane Society of the United States 88
Prepared statement of.................................... 91
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 95
Thorne, E. Tom, D.V.M., Chief of Services, Wyoming Game and
Fish Department............................................ 40
Prepared statement of.................................... 42
Wolfe, Gary J., Ph.D., Chronic Wasting Disease Project
Leader, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett
Club, Mule Deer Foundation................................. 83
Prepared statement of.................................... 86
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 87
Zebarth, Glen, D.V.M., North American Elk Breeders
Association................................................ 77
Prepared statement of.................................... 79
Response to questions submitted for the record........... 83
Additional materials supplied:
Bastian, Frank Owen, M.D., Tulane University Health Science
Center, Statement submitted for the record................. 103
Hart, Jerry, Arvada, Colorado, Letter submitted for the
record..................................................... 106
Krut, Steve, Executive Director, American Association of Meat
Processors, Letter submitted for the record................ 107
Lundquist, Ronald, President, Colorado Sportsmen's Coalition,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 108
Map of Chronic Wasting Disease in North America submitted for
the record................................................. 71
Southwick, Charles H., M.S., Ph.D., Professor Emeritus,
Environmental, Population and Organismic Biology,
University of Colorado, Statement submitted for the record. 110
Schad, Mark P., President, Ohio Association of Meat
Processors, Director at Large, American Association of Meat
Processors, Letter submitted for the record................ 111
Steele, Dick, DVM, President, Colorado Sportsmen's Wildlife
Fund, and President, Western Colorado Sportsmen's Council,
Letter submitted for the record............................ 112
Young, John, DVM, President, Colorado Veterinary Medical
Association, Letter submitted for the record............... 114
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
----------
Thursday, May 16, 2002
U.S. House of Representatives
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health, joint with the
Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
Committee on Resources
Washington, DC
----------
The Subcommittees met, pursuant to notice, at 9:40 a.m., in
room 1334, Longworth House Office Building, Hon. Scott McInnis
[Chairman of the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health]
presiding.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. SCOTT McINNIS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN
CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF COLORADO
Mr. McInnis. Good morning. Sorry for the delay in opening
the Committee. I just want to recommend to all of you, do not
throw a 100-pound bag of peat moss on your shoulder unless you
have got a back brace.
The Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health comes to
order. The Subcommittees are meeting today to hear testimony on
Chronic Wasting Disease. We are deeply concerned about this
situation.
I ask unanimous consent that Representatives Kind, Barrett,
Baldwin, Lucas, and Allard have permission to sit on the dais
and participate in the hearing, Mr. Green, as well. Hearing no
objection, so ordered. Mr. Ryan, as well. Any Member who wants
to, they can sit on the panel.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McInnis. Under Committee Rule 4G, the Chairman and
Ranking Member can make opening statements. If any other
members have statements, they can be included in the hearing
record under unanimous consent.
At the outset, I want to thank my colleague and the
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans, Mr. Gilchrest, for joining with me in
convening the hearing today.
I also want to thank our witnesses, who have come from far-
flung parts of the country to be a part of this dialog. I want
to give a special recognition to my longtime friend, Russell
George, former Speaker of the House, now head of the Division
of Wildlife, and his son, Tom. I must say, I have not seen this
many Coloradans and Wisconsins in the same place since the
Broncos ran roughshod--
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kind. Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Point of order.
Mr. McInnis. The hearing is going to be pretty serious. I
figured I would lighten it up here a little. But as a courtesy
to our guests from Wisconsin, I promise that that will be my
last reference to the Super Bowl. That was a little ad lib in
there.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McInnis. Today, this joint Subcommittee hearing will
explore an issue of immeasurable importance to the growing
number of communities in wide-ranging parts of this country,
the growing incidence of Chronic Wasting Disease in North
America's wild and captive deer and elk populations. In a
matter of just a few months, this once parochial concern has
grown into something much larger and much more insidious than
anyone could have imagined or predicted.
As each day passes, this problem grows in its size, scope,
and consequence. One thing becomes clear. Chronic Wasting
Disease is not a Colorado problem. It is a Wisconsin problem or
a Nebraska or Wyoming problem. It is a national problem and
anything short of a fully integrated, systematic national
assault on this simply will not do, which is precisely why we
brought our group together here today.
I am joined with my colleague, Mr. Gilchrest, in convening
this hearing because I wanted to get the best and most
knowledgeable minds in America on Chronic Wasting Disease into
the same room, and I think we have accomplished that today to
begin the process of developing an integrated and long-term
vision focused on containing and ultimately eradicating this
disease.
Let me be clear on one point at the outset that is very,
very important. Just because this hearing is being held in
Washington, D.C., before a subcommittee in the U.S. House of
Representatives does not mean that I, or, I dare say, any of my
colleagues are even remotely hinting at the outside possibility
that the Federal Government interfere with the primacy of the
States when it comes to managing the wildlife and this disease.
We emphatically are not. The people that have their hands in
the soil are at the State level, not at the Federal level. The
States are and will continue to be the decisionmakers in chief
when it comes to managing this disease. That is how it ought to
be.
For my part, I cannot think of a better person than, for
example, a Russell George to spearhead the attack on Chronic
Wasting Disease in Colorado. Russ and other officials on our
State panel are the world's preeminent authorities on Chronic
Wasting Disease. Any attempt to take the reins of control out
of their hands would be nothing short of foolhardy. On that
point, I would venture to say everyone agrees.
But as this problem has evolved and expanded over the
course of the last several months, another reality has become
readily obvious. Our friends in the States will need help.
Without question, the time has come for Congress, Federal
agriculture and wildlife officials to begin meaningful
resources to bear in support of the State-led attack on Chronic
Wasting Disease. Our role in day-to-day decisionmaking should
not increase, but the measure of financial assistance and
technical support must increase.
In particular, the Federal Government should immediately
step up and expand Chronic Wasting Disease related research.
The long-term solution to this problem is summed up in three
words: Research, research, research. There are other important
ways for the Federal Government to assist, but research needs
to be our No. 1.
Before we start throwing money at this problem, though, the
Federal Government needs to get its own house in order by
developing a unified game plan between all of the many involved
Federal agencies. It is abundantly clear that no such unified
game plan now exists. To be fair to the multitude of involved
Federal departments and agencies, this is a complex issue that
exploded onto the national scene a few months ago, and so I am
somewhat sympathetic to the fact that our Federal partners are
not yet singing from the same song sheet.
But unfortunately, with the disease popping up in new
places all the time and appropriations season just around the
corner, we do not have the luxury of time. So my charge to
involved Federal agencies is this. Before Memorial Day, get
Congress a unified and integrated game plan that lays out in
specific terms how the Federal Government intends to support
the State decisionmakers, what the division of labor between
Federal agencies should look like, and how much money each of
these agencies will need to fulfill its assigned mission.
I do not want one proposal from the AG, one proposal from
Interior, one proposal from APHIS, and one proposal from USGS.
I do not want overlapping costs. I want an integrated,
comprehensive proposal, and it can be done. So I want to put
everyone on notice, it needs to be done soon.
Now, if we do not get a unified recommendation out of the
agency within the next few days, I have got a bill drafted and
ready to go and I know some of my colleagues do, as well. My
preference would be that the agencies write the game plan. The
agencies are the experts. They are the ones that know how to
coordinate this. This responsibility should not fall on the
U.S. Congress. However, if it does, we are willing to accept
it, and if we do not get that unified proposal, we have got one
here for you. I look forward to discussing this further with
our Federal panel.
It is with this I thank all the members and witnesses for
taking part in this critical decision today. I look forward to
hearing each of your comments.
I would also mention to our guests here today that last
night they delayed some voting until today, so I expect to be
interrupted throughout the morning with votes. It is an
unfortunate part of doing business in the Congress. This is one
of the reasons we asked the hearing start at 9:30 and also,
what we are going to do is combine the first and second panel
in hopes that we can give everyone a fair lesson.
I also want to say to some of the experts out there,
remember, you are experts talking to non-experts, so talk to us
at tenth grade level. I mean, we really want to get an
understanding of what this is about. We all have read in the
papers and have kind of a basic knowledge, but your education
to us is very important today and I appreciate you traveling
these long miles, taking time away from your very important
duties back in your respective States to help us assist you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McInnis follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott McInnis, Chairman, Subcommittee on
Forests and Forest Health
At the outset, I want to thank my colleague and the Chairman of the
Subcommittee on Fisheries and Wildlife, Mr. Gilchrest, for joining with
me in convening this hearing today. I also want to thank our witnesses
who have come from far-flung parts of the country to be part of this
important dialogue. I must say--I haven't seen this many Coloradans and
Wisconsins in the same place since the Broncos ran-roughshod over the
Packers in the Super Bowl a couple years back. But as a courtesy to our
guests from Wisconsin, I promise that that will be both my first and
last reference to a Super Bowl memory that I suspect many of our
Wisconsin friends have tried to repress.
Today, this joint Subcommittee hearing will explore an issue of
immeasurable importance to a growing number of communities in wide-
ranging parts of this country--the growing incidence of Chronic Wasting
Disease in North America's wild and captive deer and elk populations.
In a matter of just a few months, this once parochial concern has grown
into something much larger and more insidious than anyone could have
ever imagined or predicted. As each day passes, and this problem grows
in its size, scope and consequence, one thing becomes clear: Chronic
Wasting Disease a Colorado problem, or a Wisconsin problem, or a
Nebraska or Wyoming problem. This is a national problem. And anything
short of a fully integrated, systematic national assault on this
disease simply will not do.
Which is precisely why we are here. I joined with my Colleague Mr.
Gilchrest in convening this hearing because I wanted to get all of the
best and most knowledgeable minds in America on Chronic Wasting Disease
into the same room to begin the process of developing an integrated and
long-term vision focused on containing and, ultimately, eradicating
this scourge.
Let me be clear on one point at the outset, however--just because
this hearing is being held in Washington, DC before a Subcommittee in
the U.S. House of Representatives doesn't mean that I--or I dare say
any of my colleagues--are even remotely hinting at the outside
possibility that the Federal Government interfere with the primacy of
the States when it comes to managing the nation's wildlife and this
disease. We emphatically are not. The States are and will continue to
be the decision-makers-in-chief when it comes to managing this disease.
That's the way it ought to be. For my part, I can't think of a better
person than my good friend Russell George to spearhead the attack on
Chronic Wasting Disease in Colorado. Russ and the other officials on
our State panel are the world's preeminent authorities on Chronic
Wasting Disease. Any attempt to take the reigns of control out of their
hands would be nothing short of foolhardy. On that point, I would
venture to say everyone agrees.
But as this problem has evolved and expanded over the course of the
last several months, another reality has become readily obvious--our
friends in the States need help. Without question, the time has come
for Congress and Federal agricultural and wildlife officials to bring
meaningful resources to bear in support of the state led attack on
Chronic Wasting Disease. Our role in day-to-day decision-making should
not increase, but the measure of our financial assistance and technical
support must. In particular, the Federal Government should immediately
step up and expand Chronic Wasting Disease related research. The long-
term solution to this problem is summed up in three words--research,
research, research. There are other important ways for the Federal
Government to assist, but research should be our job one.
Before we start throwing money at this problem, though, the Federal
Government needs to get its own house in order by developing a unified
game plan between all of the many involved Federal agencies. It is
abundantly clear that no such unified game plan now exists. To be fair
to the multitude of involved Federal departments and agencies, this is
a complex issue that exploded onto the national scene just months ago,
and so I'm somewhat sympathetic to the fact that our Federal partners
aren't yet singing from the same song sheet. But unfortunately, with
the disease popping up in new places all the time, and appropriations
season just around the corner, we don't have the luxury of time. So my
charge to the involved Federal agencies is this: before Memorial Day,
get Congress a unified and integrated game plan that lays out in
specific terms how the Federal Government intends to support state
decision-makers, what the division of labor between the Federal
agencies should look like, and how much money each of the agencies will
need to fulfill its assigned mission. I don't want one proposal from
AG, one proposal from Interior, one proposal from APHIS, and one
proposal from USGS. I don't overlapping costs. I want one integrated,
comprehensive proposal. So you've been put on notice.
Now, if we don't get a unified recommendation out of the agencies
in the next 10 days, I've got a bill drafted and ready to go, and I
know some of my Colleagues do as well. My preference would be for the
agencies to write the game plan. You're the experts. But if we don't
get a unified proposal out of the agencies and soon, I've got one here
for you. I look forward to discussing this matter further with our
Federal panel.
It is with this that I thank all of our Members and witnesses for
taking part in this critical discussion today. I look forward to
hearing each of your comments.
______
Mr. McInnis. With that, Mr. Kind is going to present the
statement for the Minority. Mr. Kind, the floor is yours.
STATEMENT OF THE HON. RON KIND, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you
especially, as well as Chairman Gilchrest and Ranking Members
Inslee and Underwood for moving forward on this very important
hearing that we are about to have today. I want to thank each
of our witnesses for your anticipated testimony and guidance in
helping us try to develop an appropriate response to this.
I want to especially recognize our delegation from
Wisconsin, Governor McCallum and DNR Secretary Darrell Bazzell,
as well as Agriculture Secretary Jim Harsdorf for coming out
here for this important hearing. Obviously, you have had your
hands full back in the State of Wisconsin, which is one reason
we have so many of my colleagues in the Wisconsin delegation on
the dais today. It is either going to be a hearing on CWD or we
are going to be talking about milk pricing or something if you
have a concentration of Wisconsin representatives in the same
place at the same time on Capitol Hill.
But this is a very important issue and, Mr. Chairman, I
could not agree more with the remarks in your opening
statement. This has to be about research, finding answers to
the important questions that are out there right now and
developing a comprehensive yet coordinated response to a very
serious disease that no longer is isolated in a few Western
States, but has now been detected east of the Mississippi, in
the State of Wisconsin for the very first time, but also west
of the Continental Divide.
So this is a disease that is spreading throughout the
continent and it is going to require a national response as
well as the efforts that are currently taking place in States
like Wisconsin, Colorado, Nebraska, Wyoming, the interest they
now have down in Texas and some of the neighboring States that
have large white-tailed deer population and also elk.
This is a huge issue for us, Mr. Chairman, in the State of
Wisconsin. I want to commend Governor McCallum and your staff
and the various agencies for the rapid response that you have
shown, given the early detection of CWD after the last deer
hunting season. The problem that we have, though, is just a
lack of information, good science in regards to what is the
best response, how dangerous is this disease. We cannot close
the door, quite frankly, with the paucity of scientific
research that is out there right now in regards to how the
disease spreads, the exposure of other livestock herds--given
the importance of our dairy industry in the State, that is a
big issue--and also the human health effects.
That is why I think we are going to need to work together
in a bipartisan fashion, Mr. Chairman, in order to work with
the various agencies to come up with a comprehensive plan and
approach, and perhaps in Wisconsin the problem is even more
urgent given the intense density of our deer population.
Whereas States out West, you have got maybe four to five deer
per square mile, in the State of Wisconsin, you are talking
about over 75, 75 to 100 deer per square mile, intensely
concentrated deer population, but also given the economic
effect.
Every year, we have roughly 700,000 hunters that go into
the field to enjoy a very enjoyable activity, deer hunting,
myself included. With that, it generates a tremendous amount of
economic activity in the State. In fact, the last time DNR did
a comprehensive State survey in Wisconsin, back in 1996, they
calculated it was roughly a $2.6 billion economic impact, deer
hunting season alone, in the State of Wisconsin.
It goes even more than just the effects on the deer herd,
but it also affects our way of life, a very important tradition
and quality of life that we enjoy in Wisconsin because now we
are starting to hear some State officials saying that if we do
not get ahead of this curve in the State of Wisconsin as
rapidly as this disease has the potential of spreading, we may
not have a white-tailed deer herd in Wisconsin in perhaps 20 to
25 years.
When I heard those comments, a chill went down my spine,
Mr. Chairman, because I enjoy the sport. I hunt myself and I
have two little boys who I want to pass this on to, and a lot
of hunters that have contacted me are very concerned about that
same thing. What is this going to mean in regards to the future
of hunting and outdoor recreation generally in the State of
Wisconsin?
That is why I have been leading an effort, with the
cooperation of the other Wisconsin delegation members, to try
to help the State in doing what they are trying to accomplish,
and that is to eradicate the disease before it spins out of
control. We put in a request to the appropriators to
appropriate some money to develop a live test for this disease.
Right now in Wisconsin, we have to kill the deer and then send
the deer head to Ames, Iowa, because we do not have testing
facilities in Wisconsin alone. But there is also concern about
a proposed 15,000 deer kill-off in a much larger geographic
area at ground zero in the detection of this disease and some
are starting to question whether that is the most appropriate
response in dealing with this, and that is why we need to
develop a live test so we can better track the pathology of
this disease.
We also submitted a request to USDA about six to 8 weeks
ago requesting some emergency discretionary funds be released
to the State of Wisconsin, $4 million, from CCC, an authorized
program, discretionary funds that exist. Unfortunately, we were
notified that USDA does not want to appropriate that money to
the State of Wisconsin. They are interested in taking a
national approach, which I find very alarming and very
disappointing because this is an authorized program. There are
funds available. What it does, then, is force other members,
including our Ranking Member on Appropriations, Dave Obey, to
get a $10 million line item request in a supplemental bill
because we are not getting, we feel, the cooperation from our
own department in helping our State deal with the outbreak of
this disease and the added expense that has been incurred.
In light of your remarks, Mr. Chairman, in regards to a
comprehensive research approach to this, we need to be able to
provide funding back to the States to deal with this, but I
also believe we need to provide this focused, coordinated
national effort at the Federal level to respond aggressively,
and to that end, I introduced bipartisan legislation yesterday
entitled ``The Chronic Wasting Disease Research and Response
Act,'' H.R. 4740, that would create a national program to
address CWD in wildlife. The Department of Interior would be
the responsible agency for coordinating with the other Federal
agencies, with States and local agencies and private entities
in establishing this program for CWD.
Very quickly, what the legislation calls for is a program
to provide States with the technical assistance and funding
that they are now requesting. It would design a national CWD
monitoring and surveillance program, something that we
currently lack today; conduct research on how CWD is
transmitted and the risk to public health and other livestock
herds and other animals; and develop a rapid, reliable, live
animal diagnostic test for CWD to evaluate the ecological and
environmental factors involved in the emergence and the spread
of this disease; and develop safe methods for the disposal of
potentially infected carcasses; and develop a public outreach
and education strategy for the hunting community at large; and
then assess the likelihood of transmission of CWD to non-
Federal lands and develop management options.
I think that is the type of coordinated response that we
are going to have to take with this, hoping to get the
scientific answers to these very, very important questions.
So I am looking forward to today's testimony with the
various panel members, the experts that have been called to
testify. The stakes are very, very high and yet time is running
short given the potential for the spread of this, not just in
the State of Wisconsin. We recognize that this is affecting
more and more States and is going to become a large national
and continent-wide issue unless we can get together, working on
the same page, with an effective response.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for the hearing today and
for allowing my participation and the participation of my other
colleagues from Wisconsin. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you for your comments, Mr. Kind.
I would like to insert in the record a statement from Mr.
Gilchrest, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Fisheries
Conservation, Wildlife, and Oceans.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Gilchrest follows:]
Statement by The Honorable Wayne T. Gilchrest, Chairman, Subcommittee
on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans
I am pleased to join with my distinguished colleague, Scott McInnis
in scheduling this timely oversight hearing on the emerging problem of
Chronic Wasting Disease as it affects populations of deer and elk.
While Chronic Wasting Disease or CWD has thus far been limited to
seven Western states and Wisconsin, it is essential that steps be taken
to stop this fatal and contagious disease. This disease has impacted
both captive and wild herds of deer and elk. It slowly progresses
causing its victims to suffer a slow lingering death. This disease has
the potential to devastate deer and elk herds across the nation. In
fact, just two weeks ago, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources
announced that 15,000 white-tailed deer would be killed to stop the
spread of this disease.
Sadly, there is much we do not know about CWD. For instance, what
are the modes of transmission? What is responsible for the conversion
of normal proteins to prions? Are prions even the infective agent? And,
can CWD infect humans that consume meat from infected animals?
I am anxious to work with my colleagues to develop a strategy for
the Federal government to stop the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease.
This role could include: money for testing, monitoring, research,
education and proactive control measures. However, we can not sit idly
by and allow CWD to infect deer and elk populations throughout the
United States.
I look forward to hearing from our distinguished witnesses and I
hope they can enlighten us as to the next necessary steps in the
escalating battle against this poorly understood and infectious
disease.
______
Mr. McInnis. I would also like to include in the record a
statement from Senator Russell Feingold of Wisconsin on Chronic
Wasting Disease.
[The prepared statement of Senator Feingold follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Russell D. Feingold, a Senator from the
State of Wisconsin
Thank you Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to have an opportunity to
testify on this issue. I also deeply appreciate the care and effort you
have taken to ensure that the view of states in which Chronic Wasting
Disease is an emerging problem, like my home state of Wisconsin, are
well represented at this hearing. I welcome Governor McCallum, and
appreciate his willingness o share Wisconsin's timely experience in
addressing this pressing concern.
As the Committee knows, and as I have learned, Chronic Wasting
Disease belongs to the family of transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSEs) diseases. TSEs are a group of transmissible,
slowly progressive, degenerative diseases of the central nervous
systems of several species of animals. Animal TSEs include, in addition
to Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in deer and elk, bovine spongiform
encephalopathy in cattle, scrapie in sheep and goats, feline spongiform
encephalopathy in cats, and mink spongiform encephalopathy in mink.
States like mine are now contemplating how and where their
Department of Natural Resources will cull deer in an attempt to slow
the spread of the disease, and it is a difficult choice. Wisconsin is
contemplating a herd reduction of up to 15,000 animals in ten counties.
With a disease that has no known mechanism of transmission, large scale
herd reduction may not fully address the problem. Yet Wisconsin is in
the difficult position of not being able to put off taking action to
slow the epidemic until every scientific question has been answered in
detail. Wisconsinites treasure the sight of deer in our woods and
tourism and hunting are important to our state's economy, as well.
I know that Governor McCallum will review our state's experience
and the actions we are contemplating in greater detail. I am repeating
some of these facts, Mr. Chairman, because I feel strongly that
Wisconsin's struggles to manage the disease should not also be
complicated by struggles to interact with a variety of different
Federal agencies each with differing and intersecting responsibilities
on the issue of Chronic Wasting Disease.
In short, this oversight hearing is sorely needed and long overdue.
In 1967, scientists in a northern Colorado wildlife research facility
discovered CWD, a deadly illness in the lab's mule deer population.
Thirty-five years later, the disease has spread to Kansas, Nebraska,
Montana, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Wisconsin, and Wyoming. Without a
swift and coordinated Federal response, this disease will spread across
the nation, and I look forward to hearing from both Department of
Interior and Department of Agriculture agencies about their efforts to
date, and the solutions they propose.
State wildlife and agriculture departments do not have the fiscal
or scientific capacity to adequately confront the problem. Their
resources are spread too thin as they attempt to prevent the disease
from spreading, treat infected or exposed populations, and research for
a cure. Help in the form of emergency funding, research grants, and
scientific expertise is urgently needed. Federal and state cooperation
will protect animal welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry,
provide relief to family elk ranchers, help guarantee America's food
safety, and protect the public health.
We must act quickly to end this disease, and a strong Federal
program directed toward total elimination of this disease must be
implemented. This hearing will help answer the. questions surrounding
Chronic Wasting Disease, and help us coordinate our efforts to protect
our national deer and elk populations.
So, Mr. Chairman, I commend you for having this oversight hearing.
I look forward to hearing from the government, Federal agency, and non-
governmental organizations on this. challenging problem.
______
Mr. McInnis. Let me stress to the media that is in the room
today that it is not our intent to create a panic as a result
of this disease. We are just trying to figure out exactly what
the threat assessment should be and we are going to rely very
heavily on our witnesses today to guide us through that,
because we want hunters coming to our States and so on. We need
some guidance. If we are overstating the threat, let us know.
Generally, under the Committee Rules, we ask the witnesses
to keep their comments under 5 minutes. That is so that we all
have an opportunity to have a two-way conversation through
questioning later on. I am going to make an exception with Dr.
Miller, and Dr. Miller, I ask you to keep your comments within
10 minutes, the purpose being Dr. Miller is going to give us
kind of a primer of what this disease is. He has condensed it,
but 10 minutes is about as quick as he can do it.
I would ask the first panel to be seated. We have got Dr.
Miller, Colorado Department of Natural Resources; the Honorable
Scott McCallum, Governor of the State of Wisconsin; Russell
George, Colorado Department of Natural Resources; Dr. Thorne
from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department, and Bruce Morrison
from the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission.
So if you would come up, Dr. Miller, we will start with
you. For the panel's information, they are going to start our
first vote at 10:00, so we will try and get through Dr.
Miller's testimony first. Then we will go vote and return. You
may proceed, Dr. Miller.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL MILLER, D.V.M., WILDLIFE VETERINARIAN,
WILDLIFE RESEARCH CENTER, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE, COLORADO
DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Dr. Miller. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Committee
members. I am Michael Miller, staff veterinarian for the
Colorado Division of Wildlife and I really appreciate the
opportunity and the invitation to be here and offer you some
background on your discussions today. I am sure all of you are
obviously familiar with this problem, at least to some extent,
and so what I want to do briefly is give you some key features
of the disease by way of review, talk about its history and
what we currently know about the distribution and occurrence of
Chronic Wasting Disease in both free-ranging and farm deer and
elk.
The information I am presenting is actually a synthesis of
data and these data have been generated by a number of State
and Federal and university scientists who have actually been
collaboratively working on Chronic Wasting Disease research for
over two decades. In particular, please recognize the
contributions of Dr. Beth Williams, who is actually in the
gallery today, from the University of Wyoming; Dr. Terry
Spraker from Colorado State University; Dr. Katherine O'Rourke
and colleagues from the USDA ARS laboratory in Pullman; Dr.
Byron Caughey, Richard Race, and colleagues from the NIH Rocky
Mountain Laboratory in Hamilton; and Dr. Tom Thorne and
colleagues from the Wyoming Game and Fish Department. All of
them have helped us considerably over the years in advancing
our collective understanding of Chronic Wasting Disease.
Now, Chronic Wasting Disease, or CWD as we will probably
refer to it most of the day, is one of a small but important
group of diseases called transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies, or TSEs, or prion diseases. These diseases
are believed to be caused by strains of infectious, self-
propagating protein. These prion diseases are relatively new to
science and many aspects of their biology are poorly
understood. Some of the known prion diseases affect domestic or
wild animals and others occur naturally in humans.
There are three important prion diseases of food-producing
animals. The most common and widespread of these is scrapie of
domestic sheep and goats. It occurs in the United States and
virtually worldwide and has been recognized as an animal health
problem for over 200 years. Compared to scrapie, Chronic
Wasting Disease is relatively rare and it affects native North
American deer and elk in the cervid, or deer, family.
The third of these diseases is actually one that has
focused public attention on all the prion diseases. I am sure
that you have all heard of bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or
maybe BSE, or at the very least, ``mad cow disease,'' and are
well aware of the impacts on agricultural economies in the
United Kingdom and several European countries.
I am also sure that you are aware that in a relatively
small but significant number of cases, BSE apparently was
transmitted to humans and manifested itself as a variant of
Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease. Although sporadic CJD occurs in
human populations worldwide with an attack rate of about one to
two cases per million, the occurrence of this much rarer
variant CJD in British citizens sparked a public health crisis,
perceived if not real, that has influenced public perceptions
about animal prion diseases both overseas and here in the
United States.
It is really important for you all to understand that
Chronic Wasting Disease is not simply BSE in deer and elk.
These are diseases in the same family, but we know that the
strain of prion that causes wasting disease is quite different
from the strain that causes BSE and also appears to be somewhat
different from strains that cause scrapie.
The true origin of Chronic Wasting Disease remains unknown,
despite what you may read on the web or see in the newspaper.
Whether it began as scrapie or as a sporadic disease of deer or
elk is, and probably always will be, a mystery.
The known natural host range of Chronic Wasting Disease is
limited to three species, all from the deer family. These are
mule deer, white-tailed deer, and elk. All three species show
similar susceptibility and the disease does not appear to be
naturally transmissible to domestic livestock or pets, to other
wildlife species, or humans. Experimentally, Chronic Wasting
Disease has been transmitted to several species using unnatural
exposure routes, but in general, this experimental transmission
is much less efficient than it is for scrapie, which does not
appear to be a large problem outside the sheep and goats.
The hallmark signs for end-stage Chronic Wasting Disease
are emaciation and abnormal behavior in deer and elk. Other
health problems can confound the diagnosis of Chronic Wasting
Disease and so laboratories are necessary to confirm infections
in suspect animals. Chronic Wasting Disease is inevitably fatal
in deer and elk. There are no vaccines or treatments available
to protect or cure susceptible animals.
There are several important epidemiological features of
Chronic Wasting Disease. The incubation period averages 20 to
30 months with natural infections, but may be somewhat shorter
or considerably longer in individual cases. Susceptibility
appears to be pretty uniform between sexes and across age
classes. The wasting disease appears to be maintained naturally
in both captive and free-ranging populations through direct or
indirect animal-to-animal transmission, and although we do not
know exactly how the disease is transmitted, the agent is
probably shed in feces, saliva, and perhaps urine.
In addition, contaminated environments likely play a role
in epidemics. In some cases, the wasting disease agent
apparently persisted in heavily contaminated environments for
years after all infected deer or elk had been removed, and this
environmental persistence obviously represents a significant
obstacle for eradicating Chronic Wasting Disease in places
where it has already become well-established, either in
captivity or in the wild.
Chronic Wasting Disease is not new. The clinical syndrome
of chronic wasting was first recognized in captive mule deer in
Colorado in the late 1960's, but it is likely that this disease
arose in captive and/or free-ranging cervids even earlier. In
1978, Drs. Williams and Young recognized that this was, in
fact, one of the TSEs. The disease was first detected in free-
ranging deer and elk in northeastern Colorado in the early
1980's, but these almost certainly were not the first cases to
occur in either State.
Similarly, the first diagnosis was in a farmed elk in
Saskatchewan, but the source of infection appears to have been
farmed elk imported from South Dakota in the late 1980's, if
not earlier. In the last 2 years, wasting disease has been
detected in free-ranging deer in several locations well outside
the original endemic focus, and precisely how and when these
new foci of infection came about is not entirely clear. There
is some value in recognizing these dates as milestones in the
history of wasting disease, but I think we need to be careful
about interpreting them as absolute time lines for the
emergence of this disease.
Surveillance systems for Chronic Wasting Disease in free-
ranging wildlife evolved in the absence of regulatory or
economic pressure. To date, the motivations for reliably
estimating the distribution and occurrence of wasting disease
in native wildlife populations has actually been twofold. One
is scientific curiosity and the other is a sense of
responsibility for acquiring and conveying to the public
accurate information about this disease and its occurrence in
public resources. Similarly, the farmed elk industry recognized
early on the value of detecting wasting disease in their herds
as a basis for effective disease management.
Using various combinations of surveillance, we have
developed a pretty good understanding of the basic status of
wasting disease in North America. There seem to be two
relatively distinct epidemics, one in free-ranging cervids in
northeastern Colorado, southeastern Wyoming, and the
southwestern corner of the Nebraska panhandle. The other is in
a relatively small number of farmed elk herds scattered across
the U.S. and Canada with some apparent and unfortunate
spillover into populations of free-ranging deer in
Saskatchewan, northwestern Nebraska, and South Dakota.
Let me give you some real quick highlights of the epidemic,
the main epidemic in free-ranging deer and elk. Surveillance
for clinical suspects has been going on since the 1980's and
harvest surveys began in the 1990's. In all, about 15,000 deer
and elk harvested or culled in Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska
endemic area have been sampled to date. These surveys have
revealed the contiguous endemic focus of wasting disease that
primarily involves mule deer, but also includes white-tailed
deer and elk where they occur in those areas.
This so-called endemic area spans over 19,000 square miles
of mixed native habits. The most intensively infected area
extends from the Laramie Mountains in Wyoming south into north
central Colorado. In this area, average infection rates exceed
10 percent in sampled mule deer. Surveys have also been
conducted over the last 5 years in other parts of Colorado and
Wyoming, as well as in portions of a number of nearby and
distant States by responsible wildlife management and animal
health agencies. With few notable exceptions, none of these
surveys have revealed other foci of wasting disease in free-
ranging cervids.
In all, over 10,000 deer and elk from these other area have
tested negative through the 2000-2001 sampling season and more
data will be available for this last year fairly soon. At the
very least, I think these data clearly demonstrate that, right
now, wasting disease is not uniformly present across all of our
native cervid populations here in the U.S.
I want to turn your attention briefly to the status of
wasting disease in farmed elk, and you may hear more about this
later from Dr. Zebarth, but since the first diagnosis was made
in farmed elk in 1996, epidemiological investigations and
surveillance have disclosed infections in 62 game farms in six
western States and two Canadian provinces with a few other
herds under investigation. South Korea also apparently received
infected elk from Saskatchewan in 1997, representing the first
known extension of Chronic Wasting Disease beyond the North
American continent. There are documented epidemiological
connections among some, but not all, of the infected farm
herds.
The elk industry, in conjunction with responsible State and
Federal animal health agencies has been quite aggressive in
dealing with Chronic Wasting Disease and trying to develop a
national industry program Of the infected elk farms identified
to date, only a few remain under some form of quarantine and
negotiated disease management. The remaining herds either have
been or are in the process of being depopulated, and
unfortunately, in a few cases, it does appear that infected elk
farms may have exposed local free-ranging deer populations to
Chronic Wasting Disease before infections wee detected.
So although Chronic Wasting Disease is of understandable
concern to a variety of interests, there is a considerable
amount of information about it that can help us assess risk and
guide your policy decisions. In the U.S., wasting disease is
probably best viewed as two separate epidemics, one involving
free-ranging cervids and the other involving captive elk.
Neither of these epidemics are particularly new. Both epidemics
are relatively well described, particularly in comparison to
scrapie in the U.S. CWD is naturally maintained in both free-
ranging and captive deer and elk populations and, thus,
management will be challenging in both settings.
In the short term, Chronic Wasting Disease in captive elk
is much more likely to be manageable than in free-ranging
cervids, but I have no doubt that as new knowledge on wasting
disease and other TSEs comes into play, that will help greatly
in managing this situation in both captive and free-ranging
populations.
There are perceptions that Chronic Wasting Disease may
somehow threaten human or traditional domestic livestock health
and these perceptions clearly factor into the motivations for
managing Chronic Wasting Disease, even though data and
experiences to date suggest that those threats appear
vanishingly small. We know, however, that Chronic Wasting
Disease represents a significant threat to the health and long-
term stability of free-ranging deer and elk resources that are
an important component of both the ecology and economy of
virtually every State represented in this Congress.
According to published model forecasts of Chronic Wasting
Disease epidemics in deer populations, unmanaged outbreaks will
likely devastate infected herds over a period of several
decades. In the interim, the public value of these herds may
well be diminished simply by virtue of their status as CWD
infected.
Mr. McInnis. Dr. Miller, I am sorry to interrupt you, but
we have about eight-and-a-half minutes left, so we will have to
adjourn temporarily and we will come back and let you finish
your statement.
Dr. Miller. Very good. I have one more sentence, but go
ahead.
Mr. McInnis. Oh, no, one more sentence.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McInnis. But I will tell you, I also want to have you
address this. There have been accusations that the most likely
cause of the wasting disease in western Colorado was the
Division of Wildlife itself through its testing facilities, so
if that is going to take you longer than a paragraph, we will
come back. Otherwise, you can wrap up.
Dr. Miller. That will take a few minutes, so certainly.
Mr. McInnis. OK. Why do you not finish your one sentence,
we will come back and address that, and then we will go on to
the Governor. And please be patient. We will be back here as
quickly as we can.
I might also mention, Republican members, you have a
conference. I would ask--I do not do this very often, but I
would ask you to skip the conference and come back here because
this is such a critical issue. We will continue this within
about 15 minutes.
Go ahead and finish your sentence and we will go on and
vote.
Dr. Miller. The threat posed to our valuable wildlife
resources seems more than sufficient to justify more aggressive
actions, fostered by State and Federal cooperation to identify
foci of infection, contain these, and, where possible,
eliminate Chronic Wasting Disease from our nation's free-
ranging deer and elk populations. Thank you for the opportunity
to share this background.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Doctor.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Miller follows:]
Statement of Dr. Michael Miller, Wildlife Veterinarian, Wildlife
Research Center. Division of Wildlife, Colorado Department of Natural
Resources
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and committee members. I am Michael
Miller, Staff Veterinarian for the Colorado Division of Wildlife. I
sincerely appreciate the invitation to appear before your Subcommittees
to provide some background information on Chronic Wasting Disease of
deer and elk as a foundation for today's discussions. I'm sure that all
of you, as members of the Resources Committee, are at least somewhat
familiar with this disease, so much of this may well be review. In the
next few minutes I plan to briefly review key features of Chronic
Wasting Disease, its history, and what we currently know about its
distribution and occurrence in both free-ranging and farmed deer and
elk.
The information I'm presenting is a synthesis of data, much of it
previously published in peer-reviewed scientific journals. These data
have been generated by a number of talented state, Federal, and
university scientists who have been collaboratively working on Chronic
Wasting Disease for over two decades. In particular, please recognize
the contributions that Dr. Beth Williams from the University of
Wyoming, Dr. Terry Spraker from Colorado State University, Dr.
Katherine O'Rourke and colleagues from the USDA ARS laboratory in
Pullman, Washington, Dr. Byron Caughey and colleagues from the NIH
Rocky Mountain Laboratory in Hamilton, Montana, and Dr. Tom Thorne from
the Wyoming Game and Fish Department have made to our collective
understanding of Chronic Wasting Disease in deer and elk.
The prion diseases
Chronic Wasting Disease, or CWD, is one of a relatively small but
important group of diseases called transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (or TSEs, or prion diseases). These diseases are
believed to be caused by a number of unique strains of infectious,
self-propagating prion protein. The prion diseases are relatively new
to science, and many aspects of their biology are poorly understood.
Some of the known prion diseases affect domestic or wild animals, while
others occur naturally in humans.
There are three important prion diseases of food-producing animals.
The most common and widespread of these is scrapie of domestic sheep
and goats, which occurs throughout the United States and virtually
world-wide and has been recognized as an animal health problem for over
200 years. Chronic Wasting Disease is relatively rare, affecting native
North American deer and elk species in the cervid (or deer) family--
we'll spend most of our time today talking more about CWD. However, the
third of these is the one that focused public attention on the prion
diseases: I'm sure you've all heard of bovine spongiform
encephalopathy, also called BSE or ``mad cow disease'', and are well
aware of the impacts that this disease has had on agricultural
economies in the United Kingdom and several European countries. I'm
sure you're also aware that, in a relatively small but still
significant number of cases, BSE apparently was transmitted to humans
and manifested itself as a variant of Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (or
vCJD). Although sporadic CJD occurs in human populations world-wide
with an attack rate of 1-2 cases/million people, the occurrence of
variant CJD in British citizens sparked a public health crisis,
perceived if not real, that has influenced public perceptions about
animal prion diseases both overseas and here in the US.
It's very important for all of you to understand that Chronic
Wasting Disease is NOT simply BSE in deer and elk, as some might have
you believe. Although these maladies are in the same disease family, we
know that the strain of prion that appears to cause CWD is quite
different from the strain that causes BSE, and also appears somewhat
different from strains of scrapie that naturally infect domestic sheep
and goats here in the U.S. and overseas. The true origin of CWD remains
unknown (despite what you may read on the Web or in the newspaper)--
whether it began as scrapie or as a sporadic disease of deer or elk is,
and probably will always be, a mystery.
Chronic Wasting Disease
The known natural host range for CWD is limited to three species,
all from the'deer'' (or cervid) family: mule deer and white-tailed deer
(both in the genus Odocoileus), and elk (in the genus Cervus). All
three natural host species show similar susceptibility to CWD, but
there appear to be some species- or genus-specific differences that may
influence how the disease behaves in each species. Chronic Wasting
Disease does not appear to be naturally transmissible to domestic
livestock or pets, other wildlife species, or humans. Experimentally,
Chronic Wasting Disease has been transmitted to several species using
unnatural exposure routes. In general, experimental transmission of the
CWD prion is much less efficient than experimental transmission of
scrapie. After over two centuries of experience with scrapie, this more
common animal prion disease has not been shown to transmit naturally to
species other than sheep and goats; this offers considerable
reassurance that the natural host range of CWD is likely to be limited
only to select species in the deer family.
The hallmark clinical signs for end-stage CWD are emaciation and
abnormal behavior. In practice, subtle changes in behavior,
attentiveness, and locomotion can be seen in most infected animals some
months before end-stage disease develops. Other health problems,
particularly pneumonia and injury, can confound the diagnosis of CWD in
deer and elk. Consequently, as with other animal TSEs, laboratory
diagnosis is necessary to confirm infections in suspect animals.
There are several important epidemiological features of CWD. We
know to expect a prolonged incubation period in exposed deer and elk
that averages somewhere in the range of 20-30 months with natural
infections, but may be somewhat shorter or considerably longer (perhaps
60 months or more) in individual cases. Susceptibility to CWD infection
appears to be relatively uniform among species, between sexes, and
across age classes; there does appear to be some genetic influence on
susceptibility in elk but not deer. CWD appears to be maintained
naturally in both captive and free-ranging cervid populations;
epidemics persist in the absence of exposure to contaminated feeds or
other likely outside sources of infection. Direct or indirect animal-
to-animal transmission, not necessarily along maternal lines, drives
CWD epidemics. Although we don't know precisely how CWD is transmitted
among deer and elk, the agent is probably shed in feces, saliva, and
perhaps urine. In addition, contaminated environments likely play a
role in epidemics and the recurrence of disease in some situations--in
some cases, the CWD agent apparently persisted in heavily contaminated
environments for years after all infected deer or elk had been removed.
This environmental persistence obviously represents a significant
obstacle for eradicating CWD in places where it is already well-
established, either in captivity or in the wild.
Chronic Wasting Disease is not a new prion disease. The clinical
syndrome of ``chronic wasting'' was first recognized in captive mule
deer in Colorado in the late 1960s, but tying the first recognition of
a disease like this to its first occurrence seems like a substantial
leap of faith. Based on what we now know about its distribution and
occurrence, it is quite plausible that CWD actually arose in captive
and/or free-ranging cervids 40 or more years ago. In 1977, Drs.
Williams and Young recognized that CWD was, in fact, a TSE. Within a
few years of finally having a clear-cut diagnostic criterion, CWD was
first detected in free-ranging elk and deer in northeastern Colorado
and southeastern Wyoming--however, these were almost certainly not the
first cases to occur in the wild in either state. Similarly, the first
diagnosis of CWD in a farmed elk was made in Saskatchewan in 1996--in
retrospect, this most assuredly was not the first case to occur in the
elk industry in either Canada or the U.S. because Canadian
investigations have shown that some infected elk were apparently
imported into Canada from South Dakota in the late 1980s, if not
earlier. In the last 2 years, CWD has now been detected in free-ranging
deer in several locations well outside the original known endemic focus
of southeastern Wyoming and northeastern Colorado. Precisely how and
when these scattered foci of infection came about is not entirely
clear. So, although there may be some value in recognizing these
milestones in the history of CWD, it's important not to interpret these
as absolute timelines for the emergence of this disease.
Approaches for assessing status
Before proceeding into what we know about the status of CWD in both
free-ranging and farmed cervids, I want to provide a bit of context on
how we've come to know what we know. To truly appreciate how much we
know about CWD, it's important to compare approaches for detecting CWD
with traditional approaches for detecting TSEs in other animal species.
For both scrapie and BSE, there has tended to be a focus on clinical
cases as the means of detecting new infections. This is clearly an
effective approach, particularly when such diseases are reportable, but
there are biases and limitations inherent in this strategy. Moreover,
these surveillance programs are often conducted in an atmosphere where
there may be substantial economic penalties for owners of infected
animals or herds.
Please recognize that animals showing end-stage clinical disease
represent the ``tip of the iceberg'' with respect to the overall rate
of infection in the population of interest. Those of us working with
CWD also recognized this some time ago, and modified our surveillance
strategies accordingly. Initially, we used histopathology of brainstem
samples as an adjunct to surveying populations for CWD, and gained a
much better appreciation of the size and shape of the iceberg.
Beginning in 1996, we adopted immunohistochemistry (IHC) of brainstem
as our screening tool for surveillance, and again improved our
appreciation of the iceberg's depth and magnitude. And, for the last 3
years, we've been able to use IHC of tonsillar tissues to gain an
almost, but not quite complete, picture of the CWD iceberg. We know
even these IHC-based estimates of CWD prevalence are still a little
low, but they're much closer to truth than data generated otherwise.
Surveillance systems for CWD in free-ranging wildlife evolved in
the absence of regulatory or economic pressure. To date, the
motivations for reliably estimating the distribution and prevalence of
CWD in native wildlife populations have been twofold: scientific
curiosity, accompanied by a sense of responsibility for acquiring and
conveying to the public accurate information about this disease and its
occurrence in public resources. Similarly, the farmed elk industry
recognized early on the value of detecting CWD in their herds as a
basis for effective disease management. In this environment, three
somewhat distinct approaches to CWD surveillance have evolved and are
currently in use in varying combinations. An appreciation of the
details and applications of each is important in interpreting data on
CWD status.
The foregoing caveats notwithstanding, surveillance for clinical
suspects remains an effective tool for detecting new foci of CWD
infection in both captive and free-ranging settings. Under these
systems, clinical suspects are sampled whenever available.
Histopathology of brainstem is usually sufficient to diagnose cases,
but IHC is a valuable adjunct in many cases. Data are clearly biased,
and consequently are of little use in estimating prevalence. This
approach is very similar to traditional scrapie surveillance in the US.
In some captive settings, CWD surveillance has been applied to all
natural mortalities, and in some cases to all mortalities regardless of
proximate cause. Several states have adopted this approach in rules
that regulate their elk industries. Mortality-based surveillance is
also an effective tool for detecting new foci of CWD infection, and has
resulted in the disclosures of several infected elk farms over the last
3 years. Here again, histopathology of brainstem (a specific portion
called the ``obex'') is usually sufficient to diagnose cases, but IHC
is a valuable adjunct. Inherent biases in these data limit their use in
estimating prevalence. This approach is considerably more aggressive
than traditional scrapie surveillance in the US, and has facilitated
CWD detection in the elk industry.
And finally, those of us investigating CWD in free-ranging
populations over the last decade have developed efficient techniques
for conducting geographically-targeted random sampling of harvested
deer and elk to estimate prevalence and monitor trends. In these
surveys, sections of obex and, more recently, tonsil are collected and
examined via immunohistochemistry; infections can be staged further by
histopathology. Data from these samples represent relatively unbiased
point estimates of CWD prevalence. Unfortunately, comparable slaughter
survey data for scrapie and BSE have not been reported formally,
confounding comparisons of epidemic severity between CWD and, for
example, scrapie in the US. This lack of comparable data has perhaps
fostered misperceptions about CWD.
Current status in free-ranging and captive deer and elk
Using various combinations of these 3 surveillance approaches, we
have developed a good basic understanding of CWD's status in North
America. At present, there appear to be 2 relatively distinct CWD
epidemics occurring in North American cervid populations. One epidemic
focus is in free-ranging cervids in southeastern Wyoming, northeastern
Colorado, and the southwestern corner of the Nebraska panhandle. The
other epidemic is occurring in a relatively small number of farmed elk
herds scattered across the U.S. and Canada, with apparent spill-over to
local populations of free-ranging deer in Saskatchewan, northwestern
Nebraska, and South Dakota. Although a common source for both epidemics
has been speculated, and would certainly be the most parsimonious way
to explain the origins of CWD, no common thread linking all of these
has been demonstrated to date.
Alternatively, not knowing how or when CWD originated in the first
place, it is conceivable that whatever event gave rise to CWD once
could have occurred again in farmed elk, and that the two epidemics are
not directly related. This also could perhaps explain the recent
occurrences of CWD in Wisconsin and northwestern Colorado, where no
known exposure source has been identified to date. Regardless of
whether or not they have a common root origin, these epidemics, as we
understand them today, appear to be essentially unrelated
epidemiologically and are probably best considered independently.
I'll first give some highlights of the main CWD epidemic in free-
ranging deer and elk.
Chronic Wasting Disease has been recognized in free-ranging deer
and elk since the early 1980s. This epidemic is likely related in some
way to cases originally reported in captive research animals, but which
came first is truly a chicken-or-egg question that we're probably never
going to answer. Initially, clinical cases were recognized in both
free-ranging deer and elk in northeastern Colorado and southeastern
Wyoming. Surveillance for clinical suspects has been ongoing in both
states since these first cases were detected. Harvest-based surveys
were conducted intermittently beginning in 1983, and annually in some
areas beginning in 1990. Since 1996, we've been using
immunohistochemistry to enhance detection of infected animals. In all,
about 15,000 deer and elk harvested or culled in northeastern Colorado,
southeastern Wyoming, and western Nebraska have been sampled to date.
Ongoing random surveys have revealed a contiguous endemic focus of CWD
that primarily involves mule deer, but also includes white-tailed deer
and elk where they occur in that area. This so-called ``endemic area''
spans over 16,000 mi2 of mixed native habitats. The most intensively
infected area extends from the Laramie Mountains in Wyoming south into
the northern Front Range in Colorado--in this area, average infection
rates exceed 10% in sampled mule deer. This high prevalence ridge is
surrounded by areas of successively lower prevalence. On the fringes of
the endemic area, prevalence is 1% or less in deer. Elk reside in the
western half of this area; CWD prevalence in this species is <1% in all
of the areas sampled. Where white-tailed deer ranges overlap with mule
deer, CWD prevalence is similar in both deer species. The spatial
pattern of relative disease prevalence strongly suggests that what
we're seeing is actually an epidemic occurring in slow motion,
extending geographically through natural animal movements. Computer
models suggest that CWD has likely been present in some of the more
heavily infected areas for 35 years or more. Surveys have been
conducted over the last 5 years in other parts of Colorado and Wyoming,
as well as in portions of a number of nearby and distant states and
provinces by responsible wildlife management and animal health
agencies. With a few notable exceptions that you'll hear more about
later, none of these surveys have revealed other foci of CWD presently
exist in free-ranging cervids. In all, over 10,000 deer and elk from
these areas had tested negative through the 2000-2001 sampling season.
At the very least, these data clearly demonstrate that CWD is not
uniformly prevalent across all of our native cervid populations in the
U.S. and Canada.
I now want to turn your attention briefly to the status of CWD in
farmed elk.
As is the case with CWD in free-ranging cervids, this disease has
likely been in the captive wildlife industry for some time. The first
report of a farmed elk with CWD came from Saskatchewan in 1996--it was
a routine submission of an animal with chronic pneumonia that was
refractory to treatment. Nearly 2 years later, a similar case was
submitted from a South Dakota elk farm. Subsequent epidemiological
investigations, as well as submissions made voluntarily or in
compliance with mandatory surveillance rules, have led to disclosure of
CWD infections in 62 game farms in 6 western states and 2 Canadian
provinces; a few others remain under investigation. South Korea also
apparently received infected elk from Saskatchewan in 1997,
representing the first known extension of CWD beyond the North American
continent. To date, all of the CWD cases in privately-owned cervids
have occurred in elk. However, very little surveillance has been
conducted in privately-owned captive deer herds to date. The apparent
intensity of infections in herds studied to date has varied widely, and
probably reflects influences of husbandry, as well as the duration of
infection in a particular herd. There are epidemiological connections,
documented through animal movements, among some but not all of the
infected herds. And, although there is geographic overlap between the
location of some infected Colorado farms and the endemic focus in free-
ranging deer, with one exception epidemiological investigations really
don't support free-ranging deer as the most likely source of infection
in these cases.
The elk industry, in conjunction with responsible state and Federal
animal health agencies, has been quite aggressive in dealing with CWD.
Of the infected elk farms identified to date, only a few remain under
some form of quarantine and negotiated disease management--the
remaining herds either have been or are in the process of being
depopulated. Before Federal funds were available through a national CWD
program for captive elk in the US, many of the herds were depopulated
voluntarily or with the help of industry funding. Both Canada and the
U.S. are in the process of developing national CWD programs. In the
interim, several states have programs and regulations for CWD in farmed
cervids in various stages of development and implementation.
Managing Chronic Wasting Disease
Although CWD is of understandable concern to a variety of
interests, there is a considerable amount of information available to
help assess risk and guide policy decisions. In the US, CWD is probably
best viewed as 2 separate epidemics, one involving free-ranging cervids
and the other involving captive elk. Neither of these epidemics is
particularly new. Both epidemics are relatively well-described,
particularly in comparison to scrapie in the US. CWD is naturally
maintained in both free-ranging and captive cervid populations, and
thus management will be challenging in both settings. In the short-
term, CWD in captive elk is much more likely to be manageable than CWD
in free-ranging cervids. I have no doubt, however, that new knowledge
on CWD and other TSEs will factor into future plans for further
understanding and managing both problems.
There are perceptions that CWD may somehow threaten human or
traditional domestic livestock health. These perceptions clearly factor
into motivations for managing CWD, even though data and experiences to
date suggest those threats appear vanishingly small. We know, however,
that CWD represents a significant threat to the health and long-term
stability of free-ranging deer or elk resources that are an important
component of both the ecology and economy of virtually every state
represented in this Congress. According to published model forecasts of
CWD epidemics in deer populations, unmanaged outbreaks will likely
devastate infected herds over a period of several decades. In the
interim, the public value of these infected herds may well be
diminished, simply by virtue of their status as CWD-infected. At
present, the threat posed to our valuable wildlife resources seems more
than sufficient to justify more aggressive actions, fostered by state-
Federal cooperation, to identify foci of infection, contain these and,
where possible, eliminate Chronic Wasting Disease from our nation's
free-ranging deer and elk populations.
______
Mr. McInnis. We will reconvene in a few minutes.
[Recess.]
Mr. Gilchrest. [Presiding.] The hearing will come to order.
We appreciate your patience during the vote and we will go to
Senator Allard for his opening statement, and then if there are
any questions, we will discuss just for a few minutes with
Senator Allard. I will take the Chair until Mr. McInnis gets
back, and then we will proceed under regular order.
Mr. Allard, welcome.
STATEMENT OF HON. WAYNE ALLARD, A UNITED STATES SENATOR FROM
THE STATE OF COLORADO
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is always nice
to have a Wayne testify in front of Wayne.
Mr. Gilchrest. Yes, sir, absolutely.
Senator Allard. Wayne Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. We have something in common, then.
Senator Allard. Yes, I guess we do.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you for the opportunity to
speak before you this morning on Chronic Wasting Disease and
for holding this very timely oversight hearing. My comments--I
want to emphasize the fact that we have ignored the problem of
Chronic Wasting Disease entirely too long and I think that we
need to focus on improving our diagnostic capabilities and
research, something that is more timely. We also need to
increase capacity.
Mr. Chairman, I made some formal remarks and I would like
to submit those for the record and then I will speak from an
outline.
Mr. Gilchrest. Without objection.
Senator Allard. As a Senator, Chronic Wasting Disease
presents a great animal health challenge. As a veterinarian,
Chronic Wasting Disease presents an even greater challenge to
the scientific communities of both the States and the Federal
Government. This morning, you will hear from experts--you have
already begun to hear from them--from across the country
describing the diseases and some of the issues will be new to
this committee. There is a lot of education that needs to go on
in that regard. However, it is not new to the people of
Colorado and Wyoming who have been dealing with this problem
for over 20 years.
The experts will tell us that although we have learned a
tremendous amount from Chronic Wasting Disease, or commonly
referred to as CWD, there is much that we do not know and much
that we must do to eradicate it. One thing we do know is that
legislation without thoughtful deliberation is not the answer.
As in all critical environmental issues, sound science is the
answer.
The disease is quite simply a mystery. The origin and
transmission of CWD is unknown. Unfortunately, the treatment of
Chronic Wasting Disease is all too familiar. The only way to
treat an animal or to contain the disease is to destroy the
animal and cull the herd. This is not an unusual procedure in
diseases that are important to the livestock industry. We find
ourselves using the same procedure in eradication of such
things as brucellosis and tuberculosis that affect animals.
Together, we must embark on an ambitious and sound
scientific commitment for research and investigation to end
Chronic Wasting Disease. The impact that CWD will have on
wildlife and agriculture is undeniable and the economic and
emotional toll of the disease cannot be overstated. But
communities that are economically relying upon deer and elk-
related enterprises will feel the impact of the disease as
concern about the disease grows. But we can stop this and we
must stop this.
We have an opportunity to restore cervid health, to contain
the disease, and most importantly, to eradicate the disease.
This is the challenge that I urge the experts here and in the
States to accept, and to accept by taking decisive action by
funding research to completely eradicate Chronic Wasting
Disease.
It is clear that Federal resources are required to help the
States keep CWD from spreading, to treat infected or exposed
populations, and to greatly expand research for testing and
possible cures. Assistance in the form of emergency funding and
competitive research grants are vital components of the CWD
offensive. Federal and State cooperation will protect animal
welfare, safeguard our valued livestock industry, provide
relief to family elk ranchers, help guarantee America's food
safety, and protect the public health.
Chronic Wasting Disease presents a common problem to the
States and the Federal Government, this is reflected in the
fact that both State and Federal stakeholders are present here
today. Federal agencies must work together to provide our
nationwide system of universities with the research funding
that is necessary to attack the disease. This Federal conduit
role will allow universities to unravel the CWD mystery while
Federal agencies cooperate within to provide vital insight
through our CWD programs at the United States Department of
Agriculture and the Department of Interior.
Specifically, I call for a nationwide increase in
diagnostic capabilities. There are some facilities across the
Nation that have already developed CWD programs and these must
be expanded. Others must be created. I also suggest the
creation of a cost share program that would establish a State-
wide network of veterinarians who, because of their medical
training, are perfectly situated to assist hunters and
landowners who bring deer and elk to them for the CWD testing.
Undoubtedly, the spread of CWD and the increased awareness
of the disease will cause the demand for testing to grow
exponentially. We must be prepared to handle a large volume of
cases efficiently and reliably. We must develop new testing
methods to help us understand the disease as well as developing
a live test. We must localize the disease. Ultimately, we must
direct research for a cure.
The challenge we face is to achieve what we all recognize
as a common objective, to understand CWD and to eradicate it.
But we must act quickly or this disease will redefine the
wildlife characteristics of our States.
I thank the Chairman for allowing me to make my comments at
this proceeding.
Mr. McInnis. [Presiding.] Thank you, Senator, and again, I
appreciate you taking the time to come over and do this. Sorry
about the delay of the vote. Also, we look forward to working
with you as you and I work together in the State. We look
forward to working with our colleagues on the other side.
Senator Allard. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do look forward
to working with you as we move forward to try and solve this
very serious problem.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you.
Senator Allard. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Senator Allard follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Wayne Allard, a U.S. Senator from the State
of Colorado
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity to speak before the
hearing this morning on Chronic Wasting Disease, and for holding this
timely oversight hearing. As a Senator, Chronic Wasting Disease
presents a great animal health challenge. As a Veterinarian, Chronic
Wasting Disease presents an even greater challenge to the scientific
communities of both the states and the Federal Government.
This morning, you will hear experts from across the country
describe a disease that may be new to many on this committee. However,
it is not new to those of us in Colorado and Wyoming, who have been
dealing with it for over twenty years. The experts will tell us that,
although we have learned a tremendous amount about Chronic Wasting
Disease, or CWD, there is much that we do not know and much that we
must do to eradicate it. One thing we do know is that legislation
without thoughtful deliberation is not the answer; as in all critical
environmental issues, sound science is the answer.
The disease is quite simply a mystery--the origin and transmission
of CWD is unknown. Unfortunately, the treatment for Chronic Wasting
Disease is all too familiar. The only way to treat an animal or to
contain the disease is to destroy the animal and cull the herd.
Together, we must embark on an ambitious and sound scientific
commitment for research and investigation to end Chronic Wasting
Disease.
The impact CWD will have on wildlife and agriculture is undeniable,
and the economic and emotional toll of the disease cannot be
overstated. Communities that are economically reliant upon deer and elk
related enterprises will feel the impact of the disease as concern
about the disease grows. But we can stop this, and we must stop this.
We have an opportunity to restore cervid health, to contain the
disease, and, most importantly, to eradicate the disease. This is the
challenge that I urge the experts here and in the states to accept, and
to accept by taking decisive action by funding research directed toward
the complete eradication Chronic Wasting Disease.
It is clear that Federal resources are required to help the states
keep CWD from spreading, to treat infected or exposed populations, and
to greatly expand research for testing and possible cures. Assistance
in the form of emergency funding, cost share agreements, and
competitive research grants are vital components of the CWD offensive.
State and Federal cooperation will protect animal welfare, safeguard
our valued livestock industry, provide relief to family elk ranchers,
help guarantee America's food safety, and protect the public health.
Chronic Wasting Disease presents a common problem to the states and
the Federal Government. This is reflected in the fact that both state
and Federal stakeholders are present today. Federal agencies must work
together to provide our nationwide system of universities with the
research funding that is necessary to attack the disease. This Federal
conduit role will allow universities to unravel the CWD mystery, while
Federal agencies cooperate with them to provide vital insight through
its own CWD programs within the United States Department of Agriculture
and the Department of Interior.
Specifically, I call for a nationwide increase in diagnostic
capabilities. There are some facilities across the nation that have
already developed CWD programs, and these must be expanded. Others must
be created. I also suggest the creation of a cost share program that
would establish a statewide network of veterinarians who, because of
their medical training, are perfectly situated to assist hunters and
landowners who bring deer or elk to them for CWD testing. Undoubtedly,
the spread of CWD and the increased awareness of the disease, will
cause the demand for testing to grow exponentially--we must be prepared
to handle a large volume of cases efficiently and reliably. We must
develop new testing methods to help us understand the disease, as well
as developing a live test. We must localize the disease. Ultimately, we
must direct research for a cure.
The challenge we face is to achieve what we all recognize as a
common objective--to understand CWD and to eradicate it. But, we must
act quickly or this disease will redefine the wildlife characteristics
of our states. I thank the Chairman for allowing my comments at this
proceeding.
______
Mr. McInnis. We are going to move back to Dr. Miller. Let
me just say as a caution to those of you who have not been in
front of me before as guests of the Committee, shut the phones
off. No pagers, no phones. If your phone rings, you will be
asked to leave the room, so please do not do it and cause us an
embarrassment.
Dr. Miller, you may proceed.
Dr. Miller. Actually, I am at your service for questions. I
am done with my formal comments.
Mr. McInnis. Just respond very briefly. I mean, we do not
know how this disease started--
Dr. Miller. We do not know how or when this disease
started. There is lots of speculation, but the truth is that it
has been around for quite some time. It has moved both with
research animals and with privately owned animals. In all
likelihood, it has also moved in the wild naturally. Quite
honestly, what is done is done and I think we all need to look
at ways to move forward from here, figure out where the disease
is, and as Senator Allard indicated, try to get rid of it as
best we can.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you very much.
Governor, thank you for making the effort to come down
here. I really appreciate it. You have got a great State up
there and we look forward to working with you from the Federal
level. As I hope you noted in my earlier remarks, our role here
is really to be assistance to your State, not to take over the
ramrod of this thing. We depend very heavily on the resources
that you have as far as expertise and so on.
So, Governor, welcome to the Committee. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF HON. SCOTT McCALLUM, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE OF
WISCONSIN
Governor McCallum. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I did note your
earlier remarks and I am glad you did not repeat the Bronco-
Packer portion, which is the only part I remember, Mr.
Chairman.
[Laughter.]
Mr. McInnis. Keep in mind, I still control the Committee,
so we may go back to that.
[Laughter.]
Governor McCallum. Mr. Chairman, thank you and the members
of the Subcommittee for holding the hearing on CWD, a disease
that in Wisconsin, anyway, we believe is the most serious
wildlife disease that we have ever faced, and is witnessed by
the size of the Wisconsin delegation that is here. A majority
of our Congressional delegation is here and I appreciate very
much the support they have provided and the bipartisan fashion
in which they are working to help us address this. If it were
not for the time limit, I would say wonderful things
individually about each of them, but I know there is a time
limit, so I will move on.
I am joined, as well, today by Darrell Bazzell, who is our
Wisconsin Secretary of the Department of Natural Resources, and
Jim Harsdorf, Wisconsin's Secretary of the Department of
Agriculture, Trade, and Consumer Protection. In Wisconsin, when
we have discovered this disease, we said this is not going to
be by department. It is not going to be partisan. So we
immediately had our three agencies that will deal with this
working together to set up a task force, a team to work with
the public, the landowners, farmers, conservationists, hunters
as to the approach we would take.
The concern about CWD from a national perspective did take
a quantum leap when we learned on February 28 that it had been
found in our State. It was a very sad day for us in Wisconsin.
Although we are probably best known as America's Dairyland and
producers of great cheeses and title town of the Green Bay
Packers--I just added that on my own for you, Mr. Chairman--
[Laughter.]
Governor McCallum. --we are also one of the top three deer
States in the country. In the fall of 2000, hunters in our
State harvested 619,000 deer. This is the highest annual
harvest of white-tailed deer ever recorded by any State in the
country.
In addition to our great wild deer herds, we have nearly
1,000 deer and elk farms in Wisconsin. We are among the
nation's leading producers of farm-raised venison. Deer
contribute, as was mentioned earlier, well over $1 billion to
Wisconsin's economy.
I have set a State goal of eradicating CWD from Wisconsin,
if possible, but we need Federal help if we are to do so.
Wisconsin is the easternmost State to find the disease in
the wild and we have white-tailed deer that seem to be the most
susceptible of the species to contract CWD. Perhaps the biggest
concern is the scale of the issue that we are dealing with.
Over the last 10 years, our fall population of wild deer
has averaged about 1.5 million animals. Our annual deer harvest
is larger than the combined deer and elk harvest from Wyoming,
Colorado, Nebraska, and South Dakota. Our 1,000 deer and elk
farms are raising approximately 30,000 animals.
We have responded quickly as a State since February 28. In
April, our Agriculture Department adopted new, stringent rules
that prohibit the importing of captive cervids that have not
been participating in the CWD monitoring program for 5 years.
We are also requiring the testing of our deer and elk farms
where animals leave the farm, dead or alive. We are
recommending that the depopulation of the wild deer herd within
a 300-square-mile eradication zone where we found CWD-positive
deer. We estimate that prior to fawns being born this month,
there are nearly 15,000 deer to be removed.
We can lower the deer herd to a point where CWD cannot
sustain itself, and if we are going to do that, we may need to
keep the deer herd at this level for three to 5 years. This is
a tremendous sacrifice for local landowners and it will be a
very costly project for the State.
We are also trying to lower the population in the 13 deer
management units that surround the eradication zone by about 50
to 75 percent. This would require a deer harvest of nearly
100,000 additional deer.
Much like a major forest fire, CWD can overwhelm the
disease-fighting resources of a single State. We need your
financial assistance. In the roughly 80 days since we
discovered CWD in Wisconsin, our State has spent $600,000 in
responding, and literally hours ago, our legislature in a
special session that I called passed a measure, bipartisan
vote, to appropriate another $4 million. I say that in the
context of what States are going through with very large State
deficits, but that is how important it is in Wisconsin.
Nearly 2 months ago, I sent a letter to Secretary Ann
Veneman asking for $18 million in Federal assistance over the
next 4 years. I would like your assistance in any way that we
can that the Federal Government will provide grants to State on
the front lines trying to battle CWD.
The second area where we need immediate and comprehensive
Federal assistance is in the diagnostic testing for CWD. Simply
put, the total lab capacity in the country cannot match the
testing needs we have in Wisconsin alone. The CWD surveillance
testing needs for Wisconsin over the next 12 months exceeds
60,000 animals.
The specter of ``mad cow disease'' in Britain and the
recommendation from the World Health Organization that no one
eat meat from a CWD-positive animal has caused concern among a
large portion of the public. We have more than 700,000 deer
hunters in Wisconsin, including myself and many of the members
sitting on your panel. If just 15 percent of them, just 15
percent of them requested to have their deer tested for CWD, it
would add more than 100,000 deer to the equation.
We are investing $900,000 in our Wisconsin Veterinary
Diagnostic Lab to provide the capability to run the gold
standard CWD test. We are also taking steps to prepare for the
new rapid CWD tests when they are available. We need USDA
assistance to provide training to our employees and to provide
all the needed approvals to add our laboratory to seven
existing labs within the existing CWD system.
We also have several private labs in Wisconsin poised to
invest large sums of money and energy to meet the needs of
Wisconsin hunters to have their deer tested. These private labs
need a decision this month on whether USDA will allow CWD
testing to be done by them, and if so, under what requirements.
This is a fundamental question for our State. I urge USDA to
find a way to constructively harness the energy of the private
sector in the CWD war.
If we are to develop a national CWD strategy, we must
realize that we cannot protect the deer and elk farms of our
country without protecting the wild herds of deer and elk. To
protect our wild herds, we must protect the captive herds. We
need a comprehensive approach.
I will close by thanking you for holding this hearing and
giving me the chance to represent Wisconsin's CWD needs. I also
want to say thank you to APHIS for all the cooperation we have
already received from both the Veterinary and Wildlife Service
branches of their agency. The Wisconsin offices have done
everything they can to help us combat CWD. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Governor.
[The prepared statement of Governor McCallum follows:]
Statement of The Honorable Scott McCallum, Governor, State of Wisconsin
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank you and members of this subcommittee
for holding a hearing on Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), a disease that
I believe is the most serious wildlife disease we've ever faced. I am
joined today by Darrell Bazzell, Wisconsin's Secretary of the
Department of Natural Resources and Jim Harsdorf, Wisconsin's Secretary
of the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection.
Now that Dr. Miller has done an excellent job laying out the basics
of the disease, I and my colleagues from the great states of Colorado,
Wyoming and Nebraska will attempt to describe how this disease is
causing serious problems in our states. CWD presents the same very
serious threat to all of us, but each state has it own unique
challenges to deal with. I would like to share with you a Wisconsin
perspective.
What's at risk?
The concern about CWD from a national perspective took a quantum
leap when we learned on February 28th that it had been found in our
state. It was a very sad day for us. To gain a full understanding of
what I mean by that you need to learn a little about our state.
Although we are probably best known as America's Dairyland, a
producer of great cheeses, and the home of the Green Bay Packers, we
are also one of the top 3 deer states in the country. Wisconsinites
cherish the scenic beauty of our state. The white-tailed deer is an
integral part of that beauty. It is also our state wildlife animal. I'm
not exaggerating when I say that for many in my state, the quality of
their life is greatly affected by the health of the deer herd. In the
fall of 2000, hunters in our state harvested 619,000 deer. This is the
highest annual harvest of white-tailed deer ever recorded by any state
in the country. In addition to our great wild deer herds, we have
nearly 1,000 deer and elk farms in Wisconsin. We are among the nation's
leading producers of farm-raised venison. Deer contribute over 1
billion dollars to Wisconsin's economy. We have a lot at risk and,
quite simply, Chronic Wasting Disease is threatening our way of life in
Wisconsin. Because of this, I have set a state goal of eradicating CWD
from Wisconsin if at all possible. We need your help if we are to do
so.
The Wisconsin Battleground
Wisconsin brings a whole new set of concerns to the CWD
battleground. We are the easternmost state to find the disease in the
wild and we have white-tailed deer that seem to be the most susceptible
of the species known to contract CWD. Perhaps the biggest concern is
the scale of the issues we are dealing with.
Wisconsin's wild and farmed deer herds, as with most states, have
undergone great growth in the last 40 years. Over the last 10 years,
our fall population of wild deer has averaged nearly 1.5 million
animals. Our annual deer harvest is larger than the combined deer and
elk harvest from Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska and South Dakota. Our
1,000 deer and elk farms are raising approximately 30,000 animals. As
you can see we have a very large at-risk population of animals in our
state and left unchecked CWD seems certain to spread across our state.
We have responded quickly as a state since February 28th. In April,
our Agriculture Department adopted new, stringent rules that prohibit
the importing of captive cervids that haven't been participating in a
CWD monitoring program for 5 years. We are also requiring testing for
all our deer and elk farms where animals leave the farm, dead or alive.
That same month, we collected more than 500 deer from the CWD-infected
area to better determine the location and prevalence of the disease in
southwest Wisconsin.
It is important that we all understand that CWD is the enemy here
and to treat the disease, we must take drastic action. We are
recommending the depopulation of the wild deer herd within a 300-square
mile-eradication zone where we have identified CWD-positive deer. We
estimate that prior to fawns being born this month, there are nearly
15,000 deer to be removed.
This week, Department of Natural Resource's staff began removing
deer on state-owned land. Shortly, we will begin to issue deer removal
permits to willing landowners to shoot deer to lower the population on
private property. This fall, we will offer unprecedented, extended gun
deer seasons and bag limits to allow hunters to take all the deer they
can. Finally, we will offer state-assisted deer removal to landowners,
if they desire.
We are working on a landscape that is nearly all privately owned.
Without landowner and hunter cooperation in fighting CWD, our efforts
will fail. Fortunately, the majority of landowners so far have
indicated a willingness to help. This will be a long battle. If we can
lower the deer herd to a point where CWD can't sustain itself, we may
need to keep the deer herd at this level for 3-5 years. This is a
tremendous sacrifice for local landowners and it will be a very costly
project for the state.
We are also trying to lower the population in the 13 deer
management units surrounding the eradication zone by 50-75%. This would
require a deer harvest of nearly 100,000 additional deer.
How can the Federal Government help?
As I said earlier, we will need your help in fighting CWD. Much
like a major forest fire, CWD can overwhelm the disease fighting
resources of a single state. We do need your financial assistance. In
the roughly 80 days since we discovered CWD in Wisconsin, our state has
spent $600,000 in responding.
This week I called our state legislature into special session to
approve $4 million dollars in emergency state funding and helpful
statutory changes to fight the disease.
Nearly two months ago, I sent a letter to Agriculture Secretary Ann
Veneman asking for $18 million in Federal assistance over the next four
years. Today, I would like your assurance that the Federal government
will provide grants to the states that are on the front lines fighting
CWD. Wisconsin will do everything it can to help prevent CWD from
spreading to other mid-western states.
The second area where we need immediate and comprehensive Federal
assistance is the diagnostic testing for CWD. Simply put, the total lab
capacity in the country cannot match the testing needs we have in
Wisconsin alone. The CWD surveillance testing needs for Wisconsin over
the next 12 months exceeds 60,000 animals. This figure, which is likely
not achievable, includes testing deer from the eradication zone, the
surrounding 13 deer management units, and surveying as much of the rest
of the state as we can handle. If we add the testing desired for food
safety reasons, the number increases dramatically.
Dr. Miller indicated that CWD is a disease of perception in terms
of the human health risk. I couldn't agree more. It is comforting that
CWD has not yet been documented to cause human illness and that the CWD
prions have not been found in venison. However, the specter of Mad Cow
disease in Britain, and the recommendation from the World Health
Organization that no one eat meat from a CWD positive animal, causes
concern in a large portion of the public. We have more than 700,000
deer hunters in Wisconsin. If just 15% of them request to have their
deer tested for CWD, it will add more than 100,000 deer to the
equation.
Currently, Wisconsin has no in-state testing capacity, but we are
moving quickly to change that. We are investing $900,000 in our
Wisconsin Veterinary Diagnostic Lab, to allow us to run the gold
standard CWD test. We are also taking steps to prepare for the new
rapid CWD tests when they are available. With luck, we may be running
some tests by early summer. We need USDA APHIS assistance to provide
training to our employees and to provide all the needed approvals to
add our laboratory to the seven existing labs within the national CWD
system.
We also have several private labs in Wisconsin poised to invest
large sums of money and energy to meet the needs of Wisconsin's hunters
who want their deer tested. Deer season starts September 14 and much
work needs to be done in the next 120 days if they are to offer
testing. These private labs need a decision this month on whether USDA
will allow CWD testing to be done by them, and if so, under what
requirements. This is a fundamental question for our state.
I urge USDA to find a way to constructively harness the energy of
private enterprise in the war on CWD. If confidence in the safety of
venison falls and causes deer hunters not to participate in the gun
deer season, it will have many negative consequences. First and
foremost, the growth of the herd will have negative impacts on
agriculture, native vegetation and vehicle-deer collisions.
The Federal Government could also act as a clearinghouse or
repository of critical CWD information for access by states and the
general public. For example, the disposal of carcasses from CWD-
infected areas has received a lot of discussion in Wisconsin. I suspect
the Federal agencies have already addressed this issue and could save
states a lot of time if they shared their analysis.
Finally, there are many key and basic research questions about CWD
that we need help answering. How does the transmission of CWD occur? Is
CWD contamination of the environment a key factor? Does CWD act the
same in white-tailed deer as in mule deer or elk?
As we develop a national CWD strategy, we must realize that we
can't protect the deer and elk farms of our country without protecting
our wild herds of deer and elk. To protect our wild herds, we must
protect the captive herds. We need a comprehensive approach.
I will close by thanking you for holding this hearing and giving me
the chance to represent Wisconsin's CWD needs. I also want to say thank
you to APHIS for all the cooperation we have already received from both
the Veterinary and Wildlife Services branches of your agency. Your
Wisconsin offices have done everything they can to help us combat CWD.
Attachments:
Additional Wisconsin CWD Informational Documents
LMap of CWD eradication zone and surrounding CWD
management zone.
LMap of where CWD testing has occurred in Wisconsin.
LMap of deer and elk farms in Wisconsin.
LRequest to Secretary Veneman for financial assistance.
LCWD Research Priorities
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79658.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79658.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79658.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79658.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79658.005
Attachment 5
Wisconsin's thoughts on CWD Research Needs
Development of Alternative Diagnostic Tests: Current tests for CWD
require killing the animal and removing the brain stem. Preparation and
laboratory analysis then takes almost a week. In addition, laboratory
capacity for CWD diagnosis is limited to a small number of labs around
the country. Development of rapid diagnostic tests and the capacity to
process many samples are needed to test the large volume of hunter-
harvested deer and to quickly assure Wisconsin's hunters about the test
status of their venison. In addition, development of an effective live
animal test is needed for the deer and elk farmers. Better
understanding of environmental contamination and the ability to
reliably disinfect disease-impacted captive facilities are critical for
effective regulation of Wisconsin's captive deer and elk industry.
Disease dynamics: Understanding disease dynamics in white-tailed
deer is a critical, fundamental research need. There is no current
research available on CWD dynamics in white-tailed deer populations--
high density or otherwise. Available information on the rate at which
animals become infected, the time required for infected individuals to
become infectious and to develop clinical symptoms, and the time span
before infected animals die must be inferred from a small body of
research on other deer species (mule deer and elk). Anecdotal
information suggests that progression of CWD in white-tailed deer may
be quicker than in these other species. We need to understand the
dynamics of CWD to understand the current risks and develop effective
control strategies. Basic information is also needed on the current
distribution and prevalence of CWD within Wisconsin.
Disease Transmission: Mechanics of transmission is essential
knowledge needed to control the spread of CWD throughout Wisconsin's
deer herd. Despite 20 years of research on western deer species, we do
not have a complete understanding of transmission routes from one
animal to another. Current research is addressing transmission in mule
deer in Colorado and the transmission process may be similar between
species of deer and elk. However, thorough understanding of the
transmission process and the mechanism by which CWD spreads in
Wisconsin's white-tailed deer is critical for development of effective
management strategies to combat this outbreak and to prevent future
outbreaks. Information is needed on the mechanism of transmission
between wild and captive deer and elk. In addition, transmission of the
disease from the environment (water, soil, etc.) to deer and
persistence of the disease in the environment needs to be investigated
to understand the long-term implications of the disease and to make
informed decisions on responsible disposal of deer carcasses that
hunter may not want to consume.
Population and Social Dynamics of White-tailed Deer: An
understanding of the population and social dynamics of white-tailed
deer in the CWD affected area is essential. The population consequences
of CWD, the rate of spread, and the ability to manage the outbreak are
all driven by the population and social dynamics of the host species.
Available information on population consequences is limited to low-
density mule deer in Northeastern Colorado and Southeastern Wyoming.
The role of population density on the rate of spread of CWD needs to be
known. Rates of reproduction, natural and human-caused mortality, and
dispersal in eastern white-tailed deer populations are likely very
different from those of Rocky Mountain mule deer. Knowledge of the
movements of white-tailed deer is specific to the habitat occupied and
may determine the likely rate of spread of CWD and how large an area
surrounding the infected area should be included for special
management. Increased understanding about the effect of CWD infection
on reproductive success and on mortality from other sources (hunter-
harvest, deer-vehicle accidents, predation) is needed to accurately
assess the effects of CWD on white-tailed deer populations. Species-
specific differences in behavior may affect the rate of transmission
between individuals and the spread of the disease within and between
populations. All these population dynamics data are needed to model
likely impacts and spread of CWD and to develop effective strategies to
combat the disease.
Social Consequences: The area of southwestern Wisconsin affected by
CWD is a landscape of privately owned small farms. The effectiveness of
disease management efforts will depend primarily on the cooperation and
participation of local landowners and deer hunters. Stakeholder
attitudes toward the seriousness of CWD, their personal long-term goals
for the deer population in the area, their willingness to cooperate and
participate in disease management actions, and their perception of
health risk to humans associated with venison consumption need to be
known. The willingness of meat processors and taxidermists to handle
deer in the infected area should also be known. Research on the human
dimensions of CWD management will be critical for developing effective
management strategies.
Interspecific Transmission of the CWD: Additional research is
critically needed to understand the potential for CWD transmission to
humans, other wildlife, and livestock. Research is underway evaluating
if cattle can be infected by using the same environment or sharing food
sources with infected deer. Additional current research is looking at
the potential for CWD spread to humans, using primate models.
Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) is the human analog of CWD. It is known
to occur worldwide, and occurs in the USA at a rate of about 1/
1,000,000 population, affecting primarily persons over the age of 65. A
new form of this disease called new variant CJD has never been found in
the USA, but has occurred in Europe, primarily in England, where the
disease was presumably contracted by eating beef from cattle infected
with bovine spongiform encephalopathy. New variant CJD tends to occur
in much younger individuals than classic CJD. The Bureau of
Communicable Diseases (BCD) of the Division of Public Health (DPH), in
cooperation with the CDC, currently maintains surveillance for CJD-like
disease when it occurs in persons under the age of 56. This is an
effort to detect the new variant form of the disease if it ever occurs
in the USA. The DPH proposes to enhance these surveillance activities
by expanding them to include both forms of CJD in all ages using the
following means:
LThe Bureau of Health Information would perform
surveillance of death certificates. Since CJD is invariably fatal,
examination of death certificates is a fairly sensitive method of
detecting potential cases. Cases in which CJD is listed as a cause of
death would then be marked for follow-up investigation.
LFund a fellowship within the UW Department of Neurology
to perform medical chart reviews for the Bureau of Communicable Disease
on possible CJD cases identified through the death certificate
surveillance. This expertise in clinical neurology does not reside
within the BCD. Additionally, the funded Fellow would conduct at least
two seminars for interested physicians and infection control
practitioners to increase awareness of the CJD surveillance system and
of the disease itself.
Monitoring of the Disease Management Program: Wisconsin is planning
an aggressive management program to combat CWD. Given uncertainty
associated with many aspects of this disease it will be critically
important to monitor changes in disease prevalence, deer populations,
and human attitudes over time to assess the effectiveness of the
management program and to adapt management strategies as additional
knowledge is gained. Important issues include the efficiency of
alternative deer population reduction strategies and the impact of deer
population reductions on changes in the prevalence of the disease
across time and space. It will be necessary to integrate the results of
field research into computer modeling to assess the effectiveness of
management actions.
______
Mr. McInnis. Mr. George?
STATEMENT OF RUSSELL GEORGE, DIRECTOR, DIVISION OF WILDLIFE,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
Mr. George. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Russell
George, Director of the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Mr.
Chairman, it is a matter of enormous personal pride that I join
you here together this morning.
May I say, first of all, thank you to the Committee and the
Chairman for convening this hearing. Already, much is in motion
because of the hearing. By drawing attention to this issue from
this level, all of us have stepped up our efforts in
communication with one another and in anticipation and planning
for this enlarged level of discussion.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to commend your staff. They have
been enormously helpful to us in all of this, and I have to
admire how little time they had to become as knowledgeable and
competent in this complex area of science as they have become.
We appreciate their support.
Mr. Chairman, I have submitted a formal statement and
remarks. I would ask that that statement be entered into the
record, and then in the few moments I have, I am going to try
to imagine how we can get our arms around this discussion.
You are going to hear many of the important and salient
points about this process repeated a number of times from
several sources, and even though I think we would rather not
repeat, the fact that we do is emphatic, then, on the
importance of each of those points.
Listening to the Governor of Wisconsin reminds me that our
situations are so similar and that our respective staffs have
been working together for a long time. We admire and appreciate
that relationship, and may I say, Governor, I suspect we are
going to get to see a lot more of each other and our staffs
will, as well, as time goes on.
The Colorado Governor and Wisconsin Governor both have the
same view of Chronic Wasting Disease. We need to get on it, get
after it, be aggressive about it, try to stop it in its tracks
if you can, and I appreciate that effort and I think that is
exactly right.
In many ways, I think we know far less about Chronic
Wasting Disease than we know, and therein lies the challenge.
For example, we do not know where the disease comes from, as
you have heard from Dr. Miller. We do not know altogether how
it is transmitted. We do not know how it remains in the
environment or how long it remains. We do not know how to treat
it. There is no treatment. So we do not know how to prevent it.
We do not know how to stop it.
When you are talking diseases, that is a pretty significant
lack of knowledge, and that is the key, I think, for all of us
being here, is to recognize that and then together decide how
do we begin to fill that absence of knowledge.
Now, we do know some things about Chronic Wasting Disease
and I think it is important to emphasize those. In the first
instance, I think it is important to recognize that there is no
evidence that Chronic Wasting Disease poses a threat to humans.
In fact, what we do know suggests strongly that Chronic Wasting
Disease is not a threat to humans. In Colorado, we have
continued to coordinate and cooperate with the Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment and with the
National Centers for Disease Control. We like to rely upon the
experts in human health to talk to us about the relationship of
Chronic Wasting Disease and human health, and we are working
from the point of view that there is virtually no risk of
Chronic Wasting Disease to human health. It is very important
for us to focus on that.
Likewise, we may say that there is no science to support
any concern that Chronic Wasting Disease is a risk to other
livestock health. This is other than elk and deer. But there is
no reason to believe Chronic Wasting Disease is a problem in
domestic livestock health issues. But again, those are
scientific inquiries. We need to always focus our attention and
be sure that that is true.
Other things we know about the disease. We know it is
infectious. We know it passes from animal to animal. We know it
passes from the environment to animals. We also know that the
disease knows no difference between wild deer and domestic
deer. The disease knows no difference between wild elk and
domestic elk. The disease knows no fences, and clearly, as we
have talked today, the disease does not recognize State
boundaries.
The other thing that we know is that once an animal is
infected, that is a dead animal. It is that certain. Once
infected, the animal is dead, and that is where we are at this
point in time in science.
We also know that if we do nothing, the disease will not go
away. Others will say to you that, well, Mother Nature provided
it to us, Mother Nature will take care of it. That is not good
wildlife management, I submit to you, and the modeling that we
have done tells us that quite the opposite is true. Now, bear
in mind, modeling is just that. It is a projection based upon
whatever data you put into it. But our models tell us that if
we leave it where we find it, in about 50 years, in all
likelihood, it will wipe out the herds that it has infected.
Think of Colorado or Wisconsin or Wyoming or anywhere in
the United States without healthy large herds of deer and elk.
That is not where we want to be with this. So that is why it is
critical that we have the hearing here today. It is critical
why we work in every way we can on this.
The States have stepped up to the plate on this. I am
satisfied we have done a great deal. The Governor has talked
about Wisconsin's efforts. Colorado has a similar long list of
things that we have done and will continue to do.
We have been working with Chronic Wasting Disease for about
20 years now. You heard earlier that it was first recognized as
a separate, distinct disease in research facilities in
Colorado, 20, 30 years ago. We have worked with it in the wild
for those years in the northeast part of Colorado.
Before this latest incident in western Colorado, we had
already stepped up our efforts considerably in the Colorado
Division of Wildlife, recognizing the importance of getting
ahead of this disease. Our policy in Colorado has been to
locate the disease wherever we find it, get our arms completely
around it, define its outer boundaries, and then move those
boundaries inside and try to, if not eradicate, certainly lower
the incidence of the disease until we think we have it at a
level that is manageable so that there is less infection over
time instead of more.
Then as this new incident occurred in western Colorado, it
caught us by surprise because we had been testing and we were
confident from all of these tests that we did not have it
there. But it is there, we think in a small area and a small
amount, but it just reminds us that Mother Nature is in charge
here and there is not all that much we can do to manage it.
Mr. Chairman, I could go on, but that is my time. I
appreciate your indulgence on it. I will be available for
questions. But thank you very much for having us here.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. George. That was very helpful.
[The prepared statement of Mr. George follows:]
Statement of Russell George, Director, Division of Wildlife, Colorado
Department of Natural Resources
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. I am Russell George, Director of the
Colorado Division of Wildlife. Thank you for the invitation to appear
before you today to address the important topic of Chronic Wasting
Disease, commonly referred to as CWD. As you know, the State of
Colorado has been dealing with the challenges presented by this disease
for more than 20 years. Despite our experience, research and control
efforts, much about this disease remains unknown and today CWD commands
more of our attention and resources than ever before.
The recent and unprecedented appearance of CWD in the western half
of Colorado has forever changed our management approach. In situations
where the disease appears poised to spread beyond its historic range in
our state, as in the case of the West slope incident, we will
aggressively attempt to eradicate it. Such an undertaking may require
considerable money and manpower. In recognition of that fact, our
Legislature, at the request of Governor Owens, recently approved a
significant amendment to our budget. That amendment provides the
Division of Wildlife with an additional $1.9 million in resources to
combat this threat to our wild deer and elk.
I would like to emphasize that the appearance of CWD outside of its
previous historic range in northeastern Colorado threatens more than
just the elk and deer of our State. If allowed to persist unchecked,
the disease has the potential to negatively impact rural economies that
rely heavily upon tourism and hunting--activities that are directly
dependent upon abundant and healthy wildlife. It is for these reasons
that the Governor of Colorado requires an aggressive approach to
controlling and eliminating CWD. Last month Governor Owens also
appointed a special State task force of affected interests and experts
to monitor our management progress and to recommend new actions to
combat this threat. He has also joined with other Western Governors to
exchange information and to facilitate a more coordinated regional
management approach. Such sharing and coordinating of information will
be a key to the successful management of CWD.
Chronic Wasting Disease was considered a western concern for quite
some time because within the United States, CWD had been diagnosed only
in farmed (captive) cervids in the states of Montana, South Dakota,
Colorado, Nebraska, Oklahoma and Kansas. Furthermore, it had only been
confirmed in wild (free-ranging) deer and/or elk in the states of
Wyoming, Colorado, Nebraska and South Dakota. The recent outbreak of
this disease in the State of Wisconsin underscores the fact that CWD is
a truly a national concern, no longer one ``safely'' confined to the
West. It is now more important than ever that cooperation and
communication occur at both the state and Federal levels.
Please allow me to highlight some areas I consider ripe for state-
Federal cooperation or partnership.
Monitoring and Surveillance
Many state wildlife agencies will increase efforts this fall to
monitor the distribution and prevalence of CWD in wild populations of
cervids, especially states with elk or deer game farms. Relying solely
upon testing of symptomatic or ``clinical'' free-ranging animals will
no longer suffice in many cases. States must also be prepared to cull
wild deer and elk in situations where hunter-supplied samples are
inadequate or nonexistent. Considerable staff time and equipment are
required for such an undertaking. If existing equipment such as
vehicles, trailers and ATV's are used replacement equipment may be
required because of concerns about allowing potentially contaminated
items outside of areas where known CWD positive animals exist. In some
situations, aircraft may be required to position staff, cull animals
and remove carcasses from inaccessible areas. The use of Federal
employees, equipment and facilities could be helpful in many of these
situations. Congress should give clear direction to appropriate
agencies to help state efforts.
Testing
We are very concerned that state, regional and national testing
labs will not be able to timely process the volume of samples
anticipated this fall as a result of the discovery of CWD in Wisconsin
and on the West slope of Colorado. In addition to the increased
surveillance desired by wildlife managers and the public, hunters will
want assurances that their wild game is safe to eat. These demands will
contribute significantly to laboratory workloads around the country.
Meeting this demand will require existing labs to gear up or otherwise
convert their operations. Expanded or new facilities are likely to be
required as well. We have had some preliminary discussions with Federal
agencies for access to their lab facilities, but we need to be sure
they can more quickly provide those resources. Additional lab
facilities will be needed by September to meet hunter demands. The help
of this committee and Congress will be crucial in helping us reach our
goal.
Depopulation
Agricultural and wildlife agencies must be prepared to depopulate
exposed or suspect captive herds. These agencies must also be able to
destroy carcasses following testing. Thus far, carcasses have been
chemically digested, incinerated or buried in landfills. Each approach
requires additional funding and equipment not traditionally available.
Federal help in sharing in those costs will be vital.
Proactive Approaches
In addition to managing CWD where it has been found, agencies need
to consider aggressive means to limit the spread of the disease. Two
efforts that will require additional funds are whole-herd buy-outs and
double fencing of all existing captive-cervid facilities. We have
undertaken both of these steps in Colorado, but we must be prepared to
do more to prevent the spread of CWD to new areas.
Research and External Peer Review
An increase in research on TSEs in general and CWD in particular is
needed. The management of CWD requires a thorough understanding of
transmission, etiology, natural host range, and relationship to other
TSEs, as well as the development of tools to diagnose, treat and
prevent CWD. The Federal Government can facilitate collaboration and
encourage wildlife-specific research by using such incentives as cost
sharing or research grants to state wildlife, agriculture and public
health agencies. Concerned publics will be more comfortable with
management actions that are securely grounded in science. In some cases
the science is not keeping pace with management demands. As a result,
some segments of the public are questioning state agency strategies and
plans. Federal government coordination of support for professional peer
review of state and regional efforts will help address the public's
concerns.
Communication and Education
Around the country, state agricultural, wildlife and public health
agencies are working to independently develop communications strategies
and capabilities. Public interest and concern regarding CWD is
increasing exponentially. Popular literature, web pages and public
presentations are in ever-greater demand. Again, agency staff and
funding are severely strained as a result. Federal assistance to
develop products to ensure timely and consistent information on this
issue of national concern will be important.
National Role in Developing Uniform State Standards for the Captive
Cervid Industry
Individual states have begun to adopt or consider a variety of
regulations governing the testing, monitoring, identification, movement
and record-keeping of captive deer and elk. It is becoming increasingly
more difficult for the captive cervid industry and for state regulatory
agencies themselves to track and comply with these varied rules. Thus
there is a great need for states to cooperate in establishing uniform,
science-based regulations that will protect both wild and captive herds
from CWD. Existing Federal regulations that apply to captive cervids
(e.g., U. S. Department of Agriculture's Interim Rules regarding CWD)
should be reviewed to ensure that wild cervids are adequately protected
and for consistency with these uniform state standards.
Before I conclude, I would like to make you aware of several
activities the State of Colorado is engaged in regarding CWD. I have
already mentioned the Governor's CWD Task Force. I would also like to
note that the Colorado Division of Wildlife is co-hosting a national
conference on CWD in Denver on August 6-7, 2002. In addition, we are
participating in a multi-state effort to develop a more uniform and
consistent state approach to managing CWD in wild deer and elk. We have
also initiated external peer review of our management activities to
date. I am proud to say that Dr. Mike Miller of our staff continues to
conduct and collaborate on groundbreaking CWD research with others
around the country.
In summary, I would like to emphasize that there are many
opportunities for the Federal Government to assist States in CWD
management and research. That assistance can be provided in such forms
as expertise, personnel, equipment, facilities, regulations, policy and
funding. For example, Colorado alone has identified a need for more
than $5 million in research, control and testing needs beyond what we
have been able to provide at the state level. I would urge you to
consider the most streamlined and efficient mechanisms for making such
funding available including direct block grants to the states, grants
that pass through no more than one Federal agency, or simple cost-
sharing.
This is also an appropriate time for me to state that I view state
wildlife agencies as having the primary responsibility for managing
wild cervids. State wildlife agencies have acted quickly in response to
CWD outbreaks. While we do need additional tools, this should not cause
a shift of primary jurisdiction over resident wildlife to Federal
agencies.
Thank you for the opportunity to share my thoughts and concerns
regarding Chronic Wasting Disease with you and your distinguished
colleagues. I would be pleased to answer any questions you might have.
______
[The response to questions submitted for the record by Mr.
George follows:]
June 28, 2002
The Honorable Scott McInnis
Chairman, Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
Committee on Resources
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Dear Members,
Before answering the questions you submitted on June 4, 2002, I
would like to express my sincere gratitude to the members of the
Subcommittees on Forests and Forest Health, and Fisheries,
Conservation, Wildlife and Oceans for your joint efforts on this
extremely important issue. You have provided the forum to increase the
public's awareness and elevated the discussion to a point where real
progress is within sight. I look forward to continuing our work
together as we develop the cooperative state-Federal model that will
give us the best chance to effectively manage Chronic Wasting Disease.
The stakes could not be higher and I am grateful for your interest and
cooperation in this matter.
If I or any member of my staff can be of further assistance to you,
please do not hesitate to call on us.
Sincerely,
Russell George
Director
Attachment
Questions from the Majority:
What do you consider to be the appropriate role for the Federal and
state governments to play in managing Chronic Wasting Disease
(CWD) in free ranging wildlife?
The respective states have historically maintained plenary
authority and responsibility for wildlife within their borders. CWD
presents an unprecedented challenge to state agencies charged with the
responsibility for managing wildlife. State governments, however, most
appropriately address this challenge. Maintaining state autonomy will
allow for streamlined management and allow states to develop management
strategies specifically designed to address CWD within their borders.
As an example, Wisconsin faces a different set of challenges than
Colorado. Each state should have the ability to develop management
schemes specific to their situation while working cooperatively with
each other. Federal oversight would impede the ability of states to
respond quickly and effectively to new developments within their state.
The Federal Government is not without a significant role in the
battle to control and hopefully eliminate CWD. The recent availability
of funds to buy out exposed elk ranches in Colorado will have a
positive impact on our ability to manage this disease. Additional funds
may be necessary for future buy outs and Federal participation will be
critical. In addition, as Governor Scott McCallum testified to your
committee, the Federal Government is uniquely able to act as a
repository and clearinghouse for critical CWD information. The Federal
Government will also play a critical role in the development of
research. Block grants to the respective states to facilitate and
expedite ongoing research will be critical. The Federal Government
should take advantage of the opportunity to initiate additional
research projects to fill in gaps of knowledge or to expand on existing
research consistent with the parameters outlined in response to
Question 2 from the minority, infra.
What are some of the differences in managing this disease in game
animals compared to free ranging animals? Will applying the
theories and practices behind management of CWD in game animals
be effective and/or efficient in managing CWD in free ranging
animals? Please explain.
In the U.S., CWD is best viewed as two separate epidemics. One
involves free-ranging cervids and the other involves captive deer and
elk. Neither of these epidemics is particularly new. Both epidemics are
relatively well described, particularly in comparison to scrapie in the
U.S. CWD is naturally maintained in both free-ranging and captive
cervid populations, and thus management will be challenging in both
settings. In the short term, CWD in captive deer and elk is much more
likely to be manageable than CWD in free ranging cervids. New knowledge
on CWD and other TSEs will factor into future plans for further
understanding and managing both problems. There are many similarities
between the strategies adopted to manage CWD in wild deer and elk and
those used in the management of the disease in captive deer and elk.
Much remains to be learned in both cases. What we learn as a result of
management in either situation will be of some value in the other
environment.
We know that CWD represents a significant threat to the health and
long-term stability of free ranging deer or elk resources that are an
important component of both the ecology and the economy of virtually
every state in the U.S. According to published model forecasts of CWD
epidemics in deer populations, unmanaged outbreaks will likely
devastate infected herds over a period of several decades. In the
interim, the public value of these infected herds may well be
diminished, simply by virtue of their status as CWD-infected. At
present, the threat posed to our valuable wildlife resources seems more
than sufficient to justify more aggressive actions, fostered by state
and Federal cooperation designed to identify and contain foci of
infection and where possible, eliminate Chronic Wasting Disease from
our nation's free-ranging deer and elk populations. The potential
adverse impact to the captive industry pales in comparison to the
impact that would be felt by state and local economies throughout the
country if CWD were allowed to expand unchecked in wild deer and elk
populations.
Should the Federal Government support the management of wildlife for
the sake of wildlife rather than as a potential source for
infection for game herds? Why?
The intrinsic value of wildlife alone justifies management for its
own sake. In addition to its intrinsic value, wildlife provides
immeasurable contributions to the quality of life for the residents of
Colorado and its visitors. Healthy deer and elk populations provide
recreational opportunities for both hunters and those who come to
Colorado for the chance to view these majestic animals in their natural
environments. Local economies receive millions of dollars in revenue
from hunting and wildlife related recreational activities. Public
ownership of wildlife, and the concomitant obligation to protect this
public resource, is a uniquely American concept. The support of the
Federal Government, both fiscal and through additional research is
consistent with the concept of public ownership of this important
resource.
While the Colorado Division of Wildlife understands and supports
efforts to control and eradicate CWD in captive facilities and game
farms, the value of wildlife both intrinsically and for the economic
benefits provided justify protection of wildlife as a distinct
objective.
Mr. McInnis has introduced a bill to define the Federal role in
managing CWD in deer and elk, and to define the authorities of
the Federal agencies. An important element assures that Federal
wildlife agencies partner with state wildlife agencies and that
Federal agriculture agencies partner with state agricultural
agencies. Could you comment on this bill?
The concept of Federal partnership with the corresponding state
agencies appears to be entirely appropriate under the circumstances.
The needs of agriculture and wildlife overlap in many areas but are
entirely distinct in others. For instance, both agriculture and
wildlife would benefit from research that would explain the method of
transmission between animals. On other issues, the interests are more
discreet and don't have direct overlap. For instance, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife (and the other branches of the Department of Interior) would
play an important role in supporting management of CWD in wild cervid
populations. Both the U.S.D.A. and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency will
play significant roles in helping control and manage CWD. Each agency
would presumably act as a repository and clearing house for information
and scientific data relative to CWD. U.S.D.A. would focus on
agricultural impacts and data while U.S. Fish and Wildlife would most
logically compile and disseminate data on impacts of CWD on wild cervid
populations throughout the United States. In addition, the block grants
and other forms of financial assistance would most efficiently flow
through the Federal agency with the greatest area of concurrent
jurisdiction, e.g. money for the depopulation of captive facilities
through U.S.D.A and reimbursement for state wildlife agency culling
effort expenditures through U.S. Fish and Wildlife.
Questions from the Minority:
What is the most effective way to get the States monies for research?
Does it make sense for the Federal government to cost share
with the States?
The most efficient delivery system for facilitating research on CWD
would most likely include a streamlined process for making block grants
available with a minimum of billing and reporting requirements.
Resources spent insuring compliance with Federal requirements will only
reduce the available resources for researching and managing CWD. Open-
ended grants that allow the grantee to select which objectives or
projects are most in need of resources would provide optimum
flexibility for the states and at the same time ensure that Federal
funds were spent in an appropriate manner. For example, a CWD block
grant might contain objectives such as the reduction/elimination of CWD
positive deer/elk, reduction/elimination of CWD exposed captive deer/
elk, research in transmission of CWD between species or within the same
species. The state applicant would select the projects that are most
important to their situation and propose funding levels for each
project within a total state allocation.
Colorado supports cost sharing on the research and management of
CWD. We support a relatively high percentage of Federal participation
but think its important for the respective states to show a commitment
to expanding the knowledge base relative to the management and research
of CWD in both wild and captive cervids.
What type of research should the Congress fund to help us better
understand how the disease is transmitted?
An increase in research on TSEs in general and CWD in particular is
needed. The management of CWD requires a thorough understanding of
transmission, etiology, environmental persistence, natural host range,
relationships to other TSEs, as well as the development of tools to
diagnose, treat and prevent CWD. Additional research on variations in
genetic susceptibility of deer and elk is also needed. The Federal
government can facilitate collaboration and encourage wildlife specific
research by using such incentives as cost sharing or research grants to
state wildlife, agriculture and public health agencies and
universities. Concerned publics will be more comfortable with
management actions that are securely grounded in science. In some cases
the science is not keeping pace with management demands. As a result,
some segments of the public are questioning state agency strategies and
plans.
______
Mr. McInnis. Dr. Thorne?
STATEMENT OF E. TOM THORNE, D.V.M., CHIEF OF SERVICES, WYOMING
GAME AND FISH DEPARTMENT
Dr. Thorne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity
to speak to the Subcommittee on Chronic Wasting Disease and on
the critical needs that the State of Wyoming has for Federal
funding in dealing with this disease in our free-ranging deer
and elk.
Governor Jim Geringer has asked that I stress to you, along
with the other Governors, how important Chronic Wasting Disease
is regarded to be in the State of Wyoming. We commend you and
the other Subcommittee members for recognizing the significance
of CWD to affected States and for exploring how Congress and
the Federal Government may help.
I have been working with wildlife diseases for
approximately 30 years in a research and management and an
administrative perspective. You can tell by my gray hair, I
have been working on them a little bit longer than Dr. Miller
has, and I think both Dr. Miller and I would agree, we have
never seen this kind of national interest in a wildlife disease
before and I think that is quite significant.
Mr. Chairman, I submitted a written statement for the
record, and if you would accept that, I will summarize my
comments here.
Wyoming has been addressing Chronic Wasting Disease since
1978 and we have done considerable work to outline the area
that is involved. Like Colorado, we have it as an endemic
disease. It occurs in about 11,000 square miles of southeast
Wyoming and we have worked hard to retain it in that area.
We participated in a great deal of research on Chronic
Wasting Disease. We are lucky in Wyoming in that we have some
of the world's leading scientists on Chronic Wasting Disease.
We have a long track record of cooperative and collaborative
research with the folks in Colorado. Between us, we have some
of the best facilities and some of the best scientists for
working on research on Chronic Wasting Disease.
In the last couple of years, there have been literally
thousands of farm deer and elk that have been killed to control
the disease within the farm elk and deer industry and this has
cost the Federal Government millions of dollars, primarily in
the form of indemnity to pay for the losses of those animals.
Similarly, in other States, and Wyoming is not one of them,
where there have been new foci of infection, those States are
responding by killing large numbers of free-ranging deer and
this is also costing them a huge amount of money, but it is
being done with State license dollars by the wildlife
management agencies.
Somehow, there is a widespread belief that because no
individual owns this wildlife, there is no loss when they are
destroyed to control a disease. But, in fact, we all own these
wildlife, they are important to all of us, and there are huge
losses when they are destroyed.
Surveillance for Chronic Wasting Disease was initiated in
Wyoming in 1983, and since then we have been dealing with
surveillance, management and research, and public outreach and
public information. We believe that public outreach is a very
important part of the Chronic Wasting Disease program. We feel
it is important that the public knows what is going on with
Chronic Wasting Disease. We feel it is extremely important that
we keep our hunters informed about the disease. They need to
know, as Mr. George said, that we see no evidence that this is
a disease that is transmitted to humans or that it makes a
public health threat, but they need to know that the disease
does exist and that it is one of the members of the
transmissible spongiform encephalopathies.
Wyoming would like to expand its Chronic Wasting Disease
program. We are in the process of preparing a Chronic Wasting
Disease Management Plan that would incorporate and expand the
activities that we currently have in place and we would like to
address newly emerging issues. In addition, we are working with
Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado on a multi-State CWD plan which
should go further to coordinate our management activities.
The States with CWD in free-ranging deer and elk
communicate frequently and they cooperate where it is
practical. Wyoming and Colorado have been collaborating in many
CWD research projects, and in addition, we have worked with and
we want to recognize some of the Federal labs that have worked
on this disease, especially the ARS labs in Pullman,
Washington, and Ames, and the National Institutes of Health lab
in Hamilton, Montana. They have played a significant role.
Recently, Secretary of Agriculture Ann Veneman declared a
CWD emergency in order to free up money to combat CWD in the
game farm industry. But the economic importance of free-ranging
deer and elk eclipses the economic value of game farms, and yet
very little Federal money has been made available to the States
to pay for the very expensive management, surveillance, and
research that is necessary for them to address Chronic Wasting
Disease.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, I would like to stress that
CWD is clearly a national problem and deserves Congressional
attention, especially through funding to the States for CWD
activities. A model is present by which Congress appropriates
money to Montana, Idaho, and Wyoming to address another
national disease problem. That one is brucellosis in free-
ranging elk and bison in the greater Yellowstone area. Under
that model, Federal dollars are appropriated through USDA APHIS
for grants to the three States to participate in activities as
they relate directly to brucellosis in free-ranging wildlife.
Perhaps Congress could use a similar approach to this to
provide financial assistance to the States for addressing CWD
in free-ranging deer and elk.
Mr. Chairman, we appreciate your opening remarks this
morning and the commitment that you stressed in preserving the
very vital role of the States and their primacy for managing
free-ranging wildlife. This is of critical importance to the
States and we hope that through this exercise, we do not lose
some of that.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share these
comments with you and I would be happy to answer questions.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Dr. Thorne.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Thorne follows:]
Statement of E. Tom Thorne, DVM, Chief of Services, Wyoming Game and
Fish Department
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
subcommittees, for the opportunity to comment on Chronic Wasting
Disease (CWD) in Wyoming and on associated critical needs for Federal
funding to states with CWD in free-ranging deer and elk. Governor Jim
Geringer has asked me to represent him and Wyoming and asked that I
stress that CWD is regarded to be of critical importance to Wyoming.
In Wyoming the Game and Fish Department and University of Wyoming's
State veterinary Laboratory are responsible for CWD management,
diagnostics, surveillance, and public outreach. We commend you and
other subcommittee members for recognizing the significance of CWD to
affected states and for exploring how Congress and the Federal
Government can help.
Dr. Mike Miller, Colorado Division of Wildlife, has provided an
excellent review of the science of CWD. I will not repeat the technical
background he presented, but I hope you were impressed that CWD, a
transmissible spongiform encephalopathy (TSE), is a very unusual
disease about which there seem to be more questions than answers and
which is very difficult to control. As much as anything, it is a
disease of negative perceptions.
In Wyoming CWD was first detected in a deer at the Department's
Sybille Wildlife Research and Conservation Education Unit in 1978; it
was detected in a free-ranging elk in 1986 and a free-ranging deer in
1990. It was undoubtedly present long before it was detected in the
wild or at the research facility, and it is impossible to determine if
it occurred first in free-ranging or captive, research cervids. As far
as we can tell, CWD is restricted to approximately 11,000 square miles
of southeast Wyoming where it now is considered endemic. The University
of Wyoming and Game and Fish Department have collaborated since the
early 1980s on CWD surveillance, diagnostics, and research. Wyoming is
fortunate to have experienced, world-recognized CWD researchers and
outstanding facilities for CWD research at the Sybille Wildlife
Research Unit and the University's Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory.
Chronic Wasting Disease in free-ranging and captive deer and elk in
southeast Wyoming and northeast Colorado was little more than a curious
disease, which attracted little attention and even less research money
until the late 1980s when the bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE,
``mad cow disease'') epidemic began to ravage the cattle industry of
the United Kingdom. Although there may be more differences than
similarities between CWD and BSE, CWD began to attract attention, but
not research dollars, simply because it was, and still is, the only
animal TSE known to occur in free-ranging, uncontrolled non-domestic
animals.
Interest in CWD increased considerably after new variant
Cruetzfeldt-Jacob Disease (nvCJD) in humans in the U.K. was linked to
BSE in 1996 and when CWD was diagnosed in captive, commercial farmed
elk in Saskatchewan in 1996 and in South Dakota in 1997. The increased
attention being focused on CWD still was not accompanied by funding for
research, surveillance, management, or public outreach. Indeed, except
for a small amount of money for surveillance from USDA-APHIS, state
wildlife management agencies in Colorado and Wyoming diverted money
from other wildlife management needs to fund CWD activities related to
free-ranging wildlife.
In 2001, Secretary of Agriculture Veneman declared a CWD emergency
in recognition that CWD was about to be, if not already, out of control
in the commercial farmed elk industry. Since then many millions of
Federal dollars have been spent by USDA-APHIS to combat CWD in the elk
farm industry. This is commendable and appropriate because, among other
things, it reduced opportunities for transmission of CWD to new foci of
infection outside the endemic area of southeast Wyoming and northeast
Colorado. However, new foci of infection, at least one of which is
associated with a game farm, have been identified in Nebraska,
Colorado, South Dakota, and Wisconsin within the last year. There are
now five states with CWD in free-ranging deer, which in conjunction
with CWD continuing to spread in the game farm industry, has resulted
in CWD being regarded as a National crisis. The five states with CWD in
free-ranging deer are now expected to aggressively address CWD and are
responding as best they can, but they are receiving little or no
Federal funding and do not have the necessary resources for these
activities.
It could be stated that there are three types of CWD outbreaks now
occurring in the United States and Canada: 1) Until CWD was discovered
in the game farm industry, the only known CWD was in free-ranging deer
and elk of southeast Wyoming and contiguous northeast Colorado. The
disease also occurs in research facilities operated by the Wyoming Game
and Fish Department and the Colorado Division of Wildlife within the
affected area. This is the endemic area and is the only place CWD is
known to be established as a self-maintained disease. Prevalence of CWD
within the endemic area varies from less than 1 percent to
approximately 15 percent. The size of the endemic area is likely
increasing as the disease spreads, but spread appears to be very slow.
2) The second CWD outbreak is occurring in commercial captive cervids
as the game farm CWD outbreak. Once introduced into a game farm, CWD
appears to readily become established, although it may be years before
it is detected. Prevalence of CWD in farmed cervids is variable, and in
at least one case prevalence exceeded 50 percent. Game farm to game
farm spread appears to readily occur, sometimes over great distances,
via intrastate and interstate transport of affected game farm cervids.
In at least one location, and probably others, CWD has moved to from
farmed cervids to free-ranging deer outside the affected premise. 3)
This has contributed to the third type of outbreak--CWD hot spots or
new foci of CWD outside the endemic area. New foci of infection are
cause for considerable concern, because, if the disease becomes
established, they will become endemic areas where control or
eradication may not be possible. It is possible, especially where high
densities of white-tailed deer are involved, these new endemic areas
could spread to involve huge multi-state and provincial areas of North
America.
The advent of CWD in game farms and new foci of infection has
resulted in the current CWD crisis and this Congressional hearing.
Thousands of farmed deer and elk have been killed in attempts to
control or eradicate the disease at costs of many millions of Federal
dollars, primarily for indemnity to owners. Similarly, in new foci of
CWD, thousands of deer are being killed in order to determine the
extent of infection and in hopes of eradicating it before it becomes
endemic. The difference is that where new foci of CWD are being
addressed, it is being done not with Federal dollars, but state
wildlife management agency resources and no indemnity is paid for
publicly-owned deer and elk.
In Wyoming, game farms are highly restricted and there is only one
elk farm; it is well outside the endemic area and does not have CWD.
The scarcity of game farms in Wyoming probably explains why we do not
have game farm CWD and have not identified any new foci of CWD.
Surveillance for CWD in free-ranging deer and elk in Wyoming was
initiated in 1983, and CWD-related activities have been ongoing and
expanding since then. These activities have addressed management, or
containment, efforts; research; and information and education
activities. Management and containment activities include: targeted and
hunter-killed surveillance of CWD within and outside the CWD endemic
area; prohibited translocation of live deer and elk from the endemic
area; no movement of live deer and elk from the Sybille Wildlife
Research Unit; killing deer and elk with symptoms suggestive of CWD to
decrease opportunities for transmission; an unsuccessful attempt in
1987 to eradicate CWD at the Sybille Wildlife Research Unit by
depopulating all deer and elk present; participation in numerous
interstate coordination and research meetings; strict regulations
requiring 60-month CWD-free certification before a new elk can be
imported to the state's single game farm; and extensive, TSE diagnostic
services at the Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory.
Wyoming has some of the world's leading authorities on CWD and
outstanding facilities for CWD research. Therefore, Wyoming is an
active participant in CWD research, including: research to determine if
CWD will transmit from deer to cattle; the pathogenesis of CWD in elk
and deer; evaluation of a variety of blood and tissue tests for CWD;
evaluation of tonsilar biopsy for diagnosis of CWD; mechanisms of
transmission of CWD; studies of the presence of CWD in reproductive
tissues; pathology of CWD and evaluation of changes over time; strain
typing of CWD agents by bioassay and biochemical means; studies of the
susceptibility of humans and cattle by molecular techniques and
transgenic mice; studies of geographic distribution and dynamics of
CWD; and an elk infectious dose titration study.
Wyoming regards information and education efforts regarding CWD to
be important. This is especially relevant given the complex and unique
nature of CWD and the high volume of misinformation in circulation and
associated misperceptions regarding CWD. Public outreach efforts in
Wyoming have included: numerous press releases, responses to telephone
inquiries, and interviews with reporters, writers, radio, and
television; agency-developed television and radio stories; training
presentations to agency personnel; informational letters to limited
quota hunters, taxidermists, and meat processors in the endemic area;
informative letters to hunters whose animal tested positive for CWD
during hunter-killed surveillance; identification of CWD-affected hunt
areas and information on CWD in hunter information booklets and hunting
orders; pamphlets on CWD; and production of a training video on CWD.
Wyoming would like to expand its CWD program and is in the process
of preparing a CWD Management Plan that will incorporate and expand
activities currently in place and address newly emerging issues. In
addition, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Colorado are working on developing a
multi-state CWD plan, which should further coordinate the states' CWD
management activities.
States with CWD in free-ranging deer and elk communicate frequently
and cooperate where practical. Wyoming and Colorado have and are
collaborating in many CWD research projects. In addition, the states
recognize and very much appreciate diagnostic services and advice
provided by USDA National Veterinary Services Laboratory and crucial
research conducted by USDA Agricultural Research Services laboratories
in Pullman, Washington, and Ames, Iowa. The National Institutes of
Health laboratories, especially at Hamilton, Montana, also have
conducted important research on CWD.
As previously mentioned, the Secretary of Agriculture recently
declared a CWD emergency in order to free up money to combat CWD in the
game farm industry. But the economic importance of free-ranging deer
and elk eclipses the economic value of game farms; and, yet, very
little Federal money is being made available to states to help pay for
very expensive management, surveillance, outreach, and research
necessary to address CWD in free-ranging deer and elk.
In Wyoming, as an example, it is estimated that in 2001 deer and
elk hunters spent $182.7 Million and supported approximately 4,800
jobs. In addition, elk and deer are important to Wyoming's tourism
industry, which in 2000 contributed almost $1.5 Billion and 27,000 jobs
to its economy. Deer and elk are of equal, or greater importance, to
many other states. If CWD is left uncontrolled and is allowed to become
endemic in other areas, it could adversely affect deer populations and,
through negative perceptions, have severe impacts upon hunting and
hunting's contributions to the economies of many states.
Although Federal agencies have limited jurisdiction for management
or health of free-ranging deer and elk, CWD is clearly a national
problem and deserves Congressional attention, especially through
funding to states for CWD. A model is present, although much smaller in
scale, by which Congress appropriates money to Montana, Idaho, and
Wyoming to address another national wildlife disease problem--
brucellosis in the Greater Yellowstone Area. Under this model, Federal
dollars are appropriated to USDA-APHIS for grants to the three states
to participate in Greater Yellowstone Interagency Brucellosis Committee
activities as they relate directly to brucellosis in free-ranging
wildlife. Perhaps Congress could use an approach similar to this to
provide the financial support states desperately need to address CWD in
free-ranging deer and elk.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to share these thoughts
with you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Morrison?
STATEMENT OF BRUCE MORRISON, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, WILDLIFE
DIVISION, NEBRASKA GAME AND PARKS COMMISSION
Mr. Morrison. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am Bruce Morrison
of the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission and I would like to
thank you and this Committee for giving CWD the national and
Congressional attention it needs to address it properly.
I have also prepared a written statement, and if you will
accept that for the record, I will brief it here.
The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission began surveying for
Chronic Wasting Disease in 1997 in its wild deer and elk
population after it had been discovered in a captive situation
in our State. We discovered it in the wild in 2000 and since
then have made additional confirmations of positive animals in
Nebraska.
Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, as the other States
have mentioned, has expended a large amount of money since
1997, over $1 million directly related to CWD efforts. This is
mainly in surveillance, monitoring, and control. We do not have
a research facility similar to Wyoming or Colorado, so we have
been working closely with them on research. We need additional
funding for that.
I would like to emphasize a few points in my time here. One
is, as Dr. Thorne mentioned, the States are working together.
We are developing a regional plan. We meet two to three times a
year, and in March when we met, the Governor of Wisconsin sent
representatives from their DNR, Department of Natural
Resources, to participate, and that was sincerely appreciated.
So everybody that has confirmed CWD is working together via
USDA. The Agricultural Research Service and APHIS have been
very helpful in Nebraska and other places. So that Federal-
State cooperation is occurring. The funding to make sure it
continues is what is needed and the mechanism to set it in
concrete, so to speak, so that we have one program nationwide
addressing the CWD issue is there with the funding necessary
that the States can utilize.
The APHIS program in the brucellosis area, I was going to
mention. One of the benefits of being last is everybody covers
your points, so you have got to struggle for things to say at
times, but the USDA APHIS Veterinary Services has the expertise
in veterinary sciences. They have the experience in working
with the States on various issues, whether it is livestock
disease or wildlife disease, to be one of the natural avenues
for sending some of the funding in.
I would also like to recommend that this Committee and
others look seriously at the lab capacity available. As
mentioned before, it is estimated that the States, not only the
ones with CWD but those looking for it, will be submitting over
100,000 samples nationwide this year and the lab capacity to
handle that is not available at this time.
The allowance of USDA to private labs to let them do the
testing, the licensing, so to speak, of several other labs is
needed and needed quickly before this fall hunting season comes
on because they have to get the machine, they have to have the
staff training to be able to do the testing.
Any fight against CWD will be a long-term commitment. It
will not be a short timeframe. Coming from the management side,
there will be some controversy involved, especially with the
depopulation efforts as Nebraska, South Dakota, Colorado, and
Wisconsin are attempting in wild deer populations. In Nebraska,
we are also depopulating, which is the correct way of saying
killing, several hundred wild deer in an attempt to control the
focus of CWD in a small area. So we need the funding to do
this, to do the testing, and to do the research, and to
maintain lab facilities that can do the work we need done.
The Federal Government game plan that has been asked for is
an excellent idea, but it must have State input because the
State authority over wildlife, as you very aptly stated, has to
be maintained, and that is very, very important to us. It is
imperative that any actions taken by this Congress recognize
that authority, and I think we can rest assured it will with
your opening statement, Mr. Chairman.
In closing, I would just like to state the State of
Nebraska is committed to continuing this fight against CWD as
long as it takes, even if we have to do it alone. I am very
heartened to see that we do not have to do it alone and I think
we will achieve victory, but it will be a long-term victory and
it will only be through Federal and State cooperation. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Morrison.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Morrison follows:]
Statement of Bruce Morrison, Assistant Administrator, Wildlife
Division, Nebraska Game and Parks Commission
Good morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
subcommittee. I am Bruce Morrison, Assistant Administrator of the
Wildlife Division of the Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, a
certified wildlife biologist and a wildlife disease specialist. Thank
you for giving the ongoing fight against CWD the Congressional and
national attention it needs. I am grateful for the opportunity to
testify before you today and present the views of the State of Nebraska
as concerns Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). Nebraska is one of the
unfortunate states that has confirmed the presence of this disease in
our wild deer populations. Since November of 2000, a total of 14
animals in four counties have tested positive for CWD. Additionally,
three captive wildlife facilities in the state have had Rocky Mountain
Elk test positive. The wild occurrences of this disease have, so far,
been restricted to the extreme western portion of our state and all
counties where it is found border Colorado, Wyoming and/or South
Dakota. The state has been working diligently with state and Federal
agencies from throughout the United States and Canada in our attempts
to identify endemic areas, conduct surveillance, reduce the chance for
spread through population reductions, develop a regional management and
research plan and, hopefully, eventually eradicate CWD in North
America. I would like to stress that the cooperation between the
various state wildlife agencies and USDA-APHIS and USDA-ARS has been
excellent and that cooperation should continue. Additional concerns
include the potential for the loss of revenue through hunting license
sales and the demise of business opportunities associated with hunting
and wildlife viewing by the citizens of Nebraska. The estimated income
loss if we loose the opportunity to utilize the renewable natural
resource of our cervid populations in over 500 million dollars
annually.
As previous witnesses have testified, CWD is a fatal brain disease
of cervid populations. There is currently no acceptable, easy
administered live test nor known cure for the disease. Efforts by the
Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wyoming Game and Fish Department,
University of Wyoming, Colorado State University, USDA-APHIS and USDA-
ARS have advanced our knowledge of the disease but they have been
unable to conduct all the research needed due to lack of funding and
proper staffing levels. The Nebraska Game and Parks Commission, South
Dakota Department of Game, Fish and Parks and the Wisconsin Department
of Natural Resources have recently joined in the effort since finding
CWD amongst wild cervids in their state. However, even with the added
partners, the funding and staffing levels present in the effort to
combat CWD are woefully inadequate. In spite of the fact that deer
hunting contributes millions of dollars annually to the economy of the
United States, funding for CWD research and monitoring has not been
forthcoming. Yet, this disease threatens to substantially reduce deer
hunting in those areas where it occurs, and thus negatively impact the
economy of those regions. Added to the mix is the remote possibility
that CWD could, sometime in the future, jump the species barrier and
infect cattle, where the potential economic impact would be
catastrophic to the United States. Therefore, it is imperative that the
states and Congress take action now to halt the spread of this disease
and, through scientific research, find a method to eliminate it from
North America. Such an effort will not be quick or inexpensive. It will
require a long term commitment by the professionals involved and by the
citizens of America to fund the effort.
The fight against CWD in Nebraska, as elsewhere, has become a
costly effort, taking much needed resources away from other wildlife
management programs and efforts. The dedication of staff time to this
battle has removed the ability of the Nebraska Game and Parks
Commission to respond in a positive manner to other issues that impact
the natural resources of our state. Additionally, with the increased
public interest in this disease, the state's efforts will be increasing
over the next few years, further diminishing our financial resources.
Since this disease has the potential to impact the rural economy of
numerous towns and villages as well as the agricultural community and
since diseases do not respect political boundaries, it is proper that
additional Federal resources be provided for the battle. Additionally,
with the large increase in the number of states implementing disease
monitoring actions this fall, the lab capacity of those accredited for
CWD testing will be strained. Turn around time for tests could stretch
into months if action is not taken to increase capacity, especially in
those states with confirmed CWD in their wild cervid populations.
Current needs facing the State of Nebraska include;
1. LFunding for research into testing methodologies, transmission
methods and environmental contamination. Estimated need is $750,000.
2. LFunding for providing double fencing at infected game farms and
research facilities. Estimated need is $500,000.
3. LFunding to maintain the Panhandle Veterinary Laboratory on a
year-round basis for processing samples. Estimated need is $250,000.
4. LAdditional staff to collect and quickly process samples for
infection rate determination. Estimated need is $150,000
5. LAdditional laboratory and disposal equipment to properly
extract and prepare samples for testing and safely dispose of
biological material. Estimated need is $75,000.
6. LFunding for the testing of hunter and agency harvested animals
for CWD. Estimated need is $50,000.
The total of these needs is $1,775,000 annually for the ongoing
fight against CWD. It is only through the infusion of these sums of
money that we will be able to continue and win this battle. This is
only Nebraska's needs. The remaining states with confirmed CWD also
need funding assistance. There is also a critical need for a national
program for funding for testing for CWD in those states where CWD has
not been confirmed. Such a program should be administered by USDA-APHIS
through the state wildlife agency.
It is imperative that any action taken by this Congress or any
Federal agency recognize the authority of the state wildlife agency to
manage the wildlife populations within their borders. This authority
must be maintained while working together in a cooperative manner to
address a national issue.
The State of Nebraska is committed to continuing the fight against
CWD and to working with all interested parties and agencies to achieve
victory. It is only by working together and pooling all our resources
can we make significant advances in this effort.
Thank you for the opportunity to present the views of the State of
Nebraska on this important issue and I would be willing to answer any
questions you may have.
______
Mr. McInnis. I will begin the questioning. I have two
points of inquiry, both with Mr. George.
Mr. George, as Congress grapples with drawing the lines of
responsibility in terms of which Federal agencies are going to
partner with the States and in which areas, what is your
preference as to which agency or department should spearhead
the Federal support efforts when it comes to managing the wild
part, the wild elk and deer herds?
Mr. George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it is
important to remember that agriculture has a constituency that
is somewhat different from Interior's constituency, just as we
are in Colorado. The Colorado Department of Agriculture has a
different mission than the Colorado Division of Wildlife. Now,
there are many places where these overlap, but there are many
places where those responsibilities, constituency-driven
demands, are different.
So I think the Federal model should be the same as we try
to strive for in Colorado, and I am sure other States, is that
you each focus on your own mission, but where you have the
contacts and the overlaps, you work together, and that
resources should be able to move freely back and forth over
that common area. But it should not come from one direction
only in any instance because of those different constituencies.
Mr. McInnis. So, in other words, at the Federal level, the
Department of Agriculture with the captive herds, the
Department of Interior would be best with the wild herds?
Mr. George. That would be my agreement, yes.
Mr. McInnis. Let me ask one other thing. If we do not
eradicate--the reason you are eradicating is to prevent the
spread, is that not correct? It is not to take the animal out
of misery. It is to stop the spread of this.
Mr. George. It is the only way you can stop the spread, is
to kill the infected animals, because there is no treatment.
Mr. McInnis. I am a little baffled, and I have not heard
their side of the story, but it is my understanding that, for
example, in the district that I represent, we have four
national parks. The Rocky Mountain National Park, which has a
prohibition against hunting, has also prohibited any
depopulation in the national park. Have you visited with them
about that? Can you give me that perspective?
And also, I would like a forecast. If they do not allow
this depopulation in their park, if it is located in the park
and they do not allow us to kill the animals, do we have to set
up a border patrol to make sure those animals do not come
across into our territory? Would you expound on that just
briefly for me?
Mr. George. Mr. Chairman, I think the Rocky Mountain
National Park has an enormous challenge because of the rules
and regulations that they operate under. I think it is harder
for them to use as a management tool the tools that we are
using outside the park.
We believe the only way we can handle the infectivity
levels that we see in northeast Colorado on the boundaries of
Rocky Mountain National Park is to move in where we find
infected animals and take them all out. We regard this as hot
spots, and in some instances, we have seen percentages of
infection rate as high as 20 percent, which is absolutely
unacceptable.
None of us like doing that. It is not a pleasant task. But
remember that deer and elk are a renewable resource and that if
we are successful in reducing the incidence of the disease, the
herds will repopulate themselves as healthy animals.
The issue is no different inside Rocky Mountain National
Park. The disease management protocols have to be the same, but
their challenge is the different set of rules. We have met. The
Acting Superintendent of Rocky Mountain National Park was kind
enough to come to my office to see me a couple of weeks ago. We
have begun in earnest our next level of discussions about
cooperation. In fact, I am hoping and expecting within the next
couple weeks we will have a memorandum of understanding between
the park and the Division of Wildlife that coordinates both our
elk management practices and our CWD disease management issues.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. George.
Mr. Inslee?
Mr. Inslee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
Chair for holding this important hearing.
I wanted to focus my questions on the ability of States as
a first responder to these outbreaks and how they relate to the
commercial game farm industry and how that interplay has acted
or not acted to try to stem this tide quickly. I wanted to ask
Governor McCallum about the Wisconsin experience.
I have heard that the first time this was discovered in
Wisconsin was February, but I am looking at some memos that
have been provided to me that show on April 17, 1998, the
Wisconsin State veterinarian had a memo from the Nebraska
Department of Agriculture that said that an elk from an
infected herd that had tested CWD-positive had been shipped to
a farm near Bloomer, Wisconsin. In a memo dated May 27, 1998,
to Bob Susan from the State of Colorado, indicating there had
been a shipment but that Wisconsin had no current rules for
CWD.
And then on September 15, 1998, a memo from a DNR
biologist, Steve Miller, to Secretary George Meyer of Wisconsin
in which he called for a moratorium on the import of all game
farm animals, and he said, and I think this is really
interesting, he said, ``At present, it appears this would be
the only way to help assure the disease is not spread into
Wisconsin.''
Now, I understand since that date, until March this year or
last night, the State of Wisconsin had not imposed a moratorium
on importation of game farm animals. It had not required random
sampling of game farm animals. It had not required testing of
dead or sick deer on these farms. It had not required a State
registry of animals. It had not required tracing back of all
diseased animals to the source.
And given, assuming these memos are accurate, and I would
obviously like your comment, but given this information that
these animals from infected herds were coming into Wisconsin, I
am having a hard time figuring out how a State like Wisconsin,
that is so dependent on the integrity of its food industry for
its economy, would not have responded quicker in a more
effective way to this infestation.
I am very interested in this because, obviously, the
commercial game farm industry, to the extent it has political
clout, if this is a problem nationwide, because that is how
this disease may be being spread--you know, these animals can
travel 1,000 miles, 1,500 miles in a couple of days with a
truck, and if we are not having States respond to this when
they have knowledge of it, that is of great concern.
So if you can help me understand why the Wisconsin
administration did not react more rapidly to this information,
I would appreciate knowing it.
Governor McCallum. I can, and as you said, if your
information is incorrect, I should let you know. Your
information is incorrect.
Mr. Inslee. Thank you.
Governor McCallum. There have been no farm animals, game
farm animals that have been found infected, and furthermore, we
have had rules in place in the State of Wisconsin.
Mr. Inslee. So I want to make sure I understand. As I
understand what these memos said, is that on at least two
occasions, from different States, the Administration was
notified that an animal from a herd that had tested positive
for CWD in other States had come into the State of Wisconsin.
Maybe that particular animal had not been confirmed for CWD,
but had come from an infected herd. Is that your understand as
to what had happened?
Governor McCallum. This press conference was held 2 days
ago that you are referring to with the memos, and George Meyer,
who you referred to, was the Secretary of the Department of
Natural Resources and would have been the one responsible for
it at the time. My understanding is, since then, he has
suggested he should not have been at the press conference and
he was not fully aware of the information that he was talking
about.
Mr. Inslee. So I want to make sure that I understand. This
September 15 memo from a DNR biologist where he called for a
moratorium on the import of all game farm animals and said, as
I understand it, and tell me if this is inaccurate, it says,
``At present, it appears this would be the only way to assure
the disease is not spread into Wisconsin.'' Was there a memo
like that from a State biologist?
Governor McCallum. Well, if you are asking about a memo in
1998 that went to--I have got 65,000 employees. I do not keep
track of all their memos. But I can tell you we have no one
since. We have procedures in place in the State of Wisconsin to
prevent the importation of animals. We have rules in place and
we are doing everything we can to prevent the importation of
these animals. We do not want--the game farm is very important
to us, as the wild herds are important to us, and we are going
to put steps in place in a bipartisan fashion, as we saw with
the legislature last night. This is not a partisan issue. We
are going to work together to move forward since February 28,
when I became aware of the issue, and will continue to be very
aggressive in the State of Wisconsin to address it.
Mr. Inslee. Well, our concern is that States may be too
interested politically in the game farm industry and,
therefore, resulting in the infection of the public asset,
which are the wild herds, which have tremendous economic value
to Wisconsin and a lot of other States.
Now, my understanding is, until March this year, your State
did not impose a regimen of testing for imported animals, nor
did it impose a moratorium, nor did it impose mandatory testing
of diseased and dead animals on game farms, is that correct?
Governor McCallum. We have regulations in place, and I am
going to just turn around and ask my Secretary of Agriculture
how long they have been in place.
You are correct. We put the regulations in effect as soon
as we found out, the 28th. Apparently, there were not the
regulations in place prior to the 28th.
Mr. Inslee. Now, there was a discussion--I am out of time,
Mr. Chairman. I am sorry. I am out of time. Thank you,
Governor.
Governor McCallum. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Gilchrest?
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can any of the vets
or biologists tell me that if a coyote, eagle, bear eats an
infected deer or elk, that the disease can transfer that way?
Dr. Miller. To the best of our knowledge, no. Certainly,
birds have not been described as being infected or playing any
known role in any of the prion disease transmissions.
Similarly, species in the dog family do not seem to be
susceptible. Domestic and wild cats in the United Kingdom were
infected with BSE and we are actually looking right now at the
role that mountain lions might be playing in several aspects of
Chronic Wasting Disease ecology. But as far as we know, there
are not any roles that carnivores or predators are playing in--
Mr. Gilchrest. So a fox or a coyote or a bear in the wild
may have some similar natural immunity as domestic livestock to
this disease?
Dr. Miller. It is not immunity per se, but there seems to
be some resistance among species for these different strains of
prion. So a strain that is adapted, as this one is, for deer
and elk does not readily go into any other species, including
humans, thankfully.
Mr. Gilchrest. I see. So it is likely--this disease is a
bacteria?
Dr. Miller. It is actually a protein.
Mr. Gilchrest. A protein.
Dr. Miller. Yes. It is very--
Mr. Gilchrest. So it is not a bacteria. It is not a virus.
It is not a parasite. It is some type of protein--
Dr. Miller. Yes. It is--
Mr. Gilchrest. --that is unique to perhaps, at least we
hope at this point, deer, elk, things like that?
Dr. Miller. This particular strain appears to be unique and
focused its attention on deer and elk. There is another strain,
or maybe more than one strain of these, that occur in sheep and
goats, but the two are somewhat different.
Mr. Gilchrest. There is a different type. So what would it
be similar to for us for the layman to understand? It is a
protein, so it is a genetic thing?
Dr. Miller. No, it is kind of a cross between something
very simple, like a virus, in terms of it being transmissible,
but in other ways, it maybe acts more like a toxin. It
accumulates in an animal's system by the conversion of normal
protein within that animal to this abnormal form. So--
Mr. Gilchrest. So is it a very bizarre form of life that
actually replicates itself and grows and evolves?
Dr. Miller. It at least perpetuates itself and propagates
itself. Whether it is alive or not, I guess is the subject of
some debate, because it does not have--most of the other--all
the other forms of life that we recognize in science have
nucleic acid, have DNA or RNA as their base for coding and
information and perpetuation and this does not.
Mr. Gilchrest. And this does not?
Dr. Miller. This does not.
Mr. Gilchrest. This does not.
Dr. Miller. It is a very new form of disease-causing agent
to science. The theory, the prion theory has only been around
for ten, 15 years. Stan Prusiner actually won a Nobel Prize
just a few years ago for developing this theory, and so that is
part of why the research maybe has not advanced as rapidly as
it might have if this were a more conventional pathogen.
Mr. Gilchrest. So part of the best help that we can provide
is funding for some understanding of the mechanism upon which
this protein functions?
Dr. Miller. I think at least one of the facets, and there
is certainly funding that is available right now for scientists
looking at the basics of prion biology here in the United
States and also over in Europe, but certainly understanding the
biology of these disease agents is going to help us in figuring
out how to protect animals through vaccines, potentially, or
through some therapeutic drug that might block the action of
these things. I know the scientists up at the NIH lab in
Hamilton have worked a little bit on some of these issues, as
well as scientists over in Europe.
Mr. Gilchrest. I would just like to make another quick
comment. It was mentioned that maybe USDA should deal with the
farm-raised elk and Interior deal with the wild elk. But my
question is about a rancher or a farmer out there that has to
deal with the wild game. Is there any provision for that
rancher to--I do not know, somebody used a politically correct
term to killing these animals and I forget what that was,
eliminate or whatever--depopulate. So can the rancher at a
season see something that appears to be CWD and eliminate that
particular--with the USDA program or State agriculture program?
Governor McCallum. In Wisconsin, the legislation we just
passed, we are now allowing--in the area that we are trying to
eradicate them, we are allowing farmers who are driving
tractors to shoot deer.
Mr. Gilchrest. Farmers to do what?
Governor McCallum. Farmers who are driving tractors can
shoot deer. We are just trying to depopulate the area.
Mr. George. Mr. Chairman, if I might also respond to that
last point, in Colorado, our preference is for the instance
that you describe, a rancher or any other citizen who believes
there is an infected animal on his property, to call the local
wildlife manager and allow us to come in and investigate the
circumstance. There are other kinds of diseases that cause
animals to appear as a CWD-infected animal appears from
symptoms.
And the other part of it is, this is so serious to us that
we want to know, is that animal actually infected? We will take
out the animal, test it, and then make a determination. If we
have an infected animal on private property, we will come back
to the landowner, discuss thoroughly with that individual what
we know, and we will ask permission then to immediately attempt
to eradicate all other animals that might have been infected by
that, or exposed to that other animal.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Kind?
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you again to all
of the witnesses for your testimony. We look forward to working
with all of you as we develop a comprehensive program to
address this, not just resources, but some technical assistance
and the research that really needs to be put in place.
We have to be careful in how we address this issue
publicly, too, because we do not want to create a human health
hysteria out there at the same time. I think it is important
that we are clear that there is no known transmission to humans
that has been detected or other livestock herds or other type
of animals, for that matter.
But there are still questions lingering, the questions I am
getting back in my district in regards to the safety of venison
that has been taken. I was doing a program yesterday and I had
a lot of hunters calling in and saying they are dumping the
venison from their freezers. They are just not going to take
the chance. And we have food pantries right now in Wisconsin
that are rejecting the donated venison that is a big part of
deer hunting season, where they are able to accept the donated
venison from hunters across the State.
Mr. George, you raised this issue too and being very clear
about it, but is there anyone on the panel now that knows of
any public health expert that can, in fact, close the door for
certain in regards to any exposure or risk to humans in regards
to CWD, especially as it relates to the consumption of venison,
of potentially infected deer? Mr. George, do you know of any
human health expert that can, in fact, say, no, humans are
absolutely safe from this?
Mr. George. Mr. Kind, I think quite the opposite is true.
My experience in working with medical professionals is that
they have an enormous respect for the unknown, an enormous
respect for nature being in charge of much of what happens to
us in life. And I do not have a problem with that hesitancy. I
think that it is right for professionals to articulate only
what we know.
But I think the right way to deal with Chronic Wasting
Disease in this context, as managers of wildlife, and
agriculture would say, as well, in domestic elk and deer, is
that, first of all, we have an obligation to know everything we
can know, and that is part of why we are here today, is to help
bring all of our combined resources together to step up the
pace so that we know more and more as time goes on.
But just as importantly, and I think all health
professionals will agree with this, is that you must then be as
eager to tell the public everything that you know. The key to
all of this is to tell the public everything we know so that
they can form their own educated opinion about how to act
themselves, and that is super-critical in our example about
hunting seasons coming up. If we are doing our job right and we
keep all of this CWD discussion science-based, fact-based,
data-based, and tell the truth at every point in all of our
public utterances, then we can keep this from being a fear-
driven or panic-driven, or ultimately an economic-driven
problem.
Mr. Kind. I thank you and I could not agree with you more.
It is really what is alarming when you get into this issue,
really the paucity of research that is out there and the
absolute need that we have to develop that science and start
having some of these questions answered.
Governor McCallum, let me turn to you. We are just now
studying the details in regards to the bill coming out of the
State special session that you held and I commend you for
drawing the other Representatives' attention to this, too, and
calling them back in special session. A couple of questions,
though, in regards to the whole herd kill-off, the proposed
15,000 kill-off, because what is being proposed is really in
the epicenter of my new expanded Congressional district and I
am starting to get some feedback in regards to safety concerns,
because--
Governor McCallum. It is the district you wanted,
Congressman.
Mr. Kind. That is right.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Kind. Thank you very much for signing that into law.
But I am starting to get some feedback in regards to some
safety issues, and what is being proposed, I understand, is
possible shooting from helicopters, also drive-by shooting on
roads and streets and that, and there are a lot of kids in the
area, obviously, playing in the fields or perhaps running
around in the woods, too. I know one of our local State Reps
down there raised this during the special session. So that is
one question I have that hopefully you can address.
But the other one, too, is in regards to the staged type of
plan, doing it in pieces, just from my experience as a hunter
myself, I know that once the firing starts, the deer disperse,
and unless we have a plan in place to establish a perimeter to
try to contain and prevent the spread of these deer once the
firing starts, I do not know if it is going to be in our best
interest to do this in stages, going for maybe a 500-deer kill-
off, and then a 1,000-deer kill-off at some later stage,
because, especially in the spring or summer when it is going to
be tough to pick them up anyway.
If they start spreading around the State of Wisconsin and
in this enlarged area, are we asking for more trouble in
regards to the spread of the disease unless we have some plan
that can contain them in a relatively narrow geographic spot?
If you could address those two issues.
Governor McCallum. I will try to get at your question. I
believe the question was pertaining to allowing the shooting
from helicopters was the first portion. Of course, I will leave
it up to the Department of Natural Resources, which, as you
well know, has sought input from local officials, from public
officials, from landowners, from hunters, conservationists, the
farm community in the State of Wisconsin, and I will rely on
them to put together the best plan possible.
As you well know, also, it is difficult to find deer and it
is much easier to spot them from the air. If you want to be
certain in trying to eradicate the animal from this area, you
are going to have to be very aggressive at it. And again, it
was passed, and if you have a concern, it was passed in a very
wide, bipartisan margin. I will rely on their expertise.
The second question pertained to the phase--
Mr. Kind. The kind of phased-in program that is being
proposed, killing off the deer in stages rather than trying to
set up a perimeter and doing it at once.
Governor McCallum. Rather than having a large--well, in
some respects, they are contradictory because you have got to
be able to use helicopters from the air to be as efficient as
possible in this. I cannot answer the second question. I do not
understand--
Mr. Kind. I guess the concern I have is once the shooting
starts, the deer, they are going to run. They are going to go
down. They are going to spread, and this entails the spreading
of the disease to a much larger geographic area if this is a
phased-in approach that we are going to be taking in the State.
Governor McCallum. I do not understand what you are getting
at. Are you asking if we should do this State-wide or what is--
I do not understand the direction your question is taking.
Mr. Kind. Again, concerns have been raised--
Governor McCallum. I apologize. I would like to answer
the--
Mr. Kind. We will be in touch with the officials in charge
of the program and see what response they have to it. Thank
you.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much to
the panel. This has been an amazingly elucidative panel, I
think, and I certainly appreciate it.
Mr. Miller, your testimony, I find quite provocative in
many ways. First of all, stating that Chronic Wasting Disease
is not a new prion disease. The clinical syndrome of chronic
wasting was first recognized in captive mule deer populations
in Colorado in the late 1960's. But tying the first recognition
of a disease like this to its first occurrence seems like a
substantial leap of faith. That is a very interesting point,
because if, in fact, we have recognized that we saw this
manifest itself somehow 40-some years ago, at least, but, of
course, it could have been 400 years ago, frankly, right?
Dr. Miller. It could have been.
Mr. Tancredo. Then I suppose I am wondering, since the time
that we know that we could identify this particular strain and
today, would that not be long enough for us to determine the
actual progress of this disease? What I mean is, if you have
got 40 years to look at it and it has not seemed to manifest
itself in a way that is quite alarming until just now, I guess
I am wondering, what does that mean for us? How should we
interpret those data so that we know that we are not
overreacting?
How do we know it has not been here 4,000 years and, in
fact, the natural course of events takes care of it? It has not
decimated the deer and elk herds up to this point in time, and
even in the 40 years since we have known it, it has not done
it. So I am wondering how to interpret those data.
Dr. Miller. Part of the interpretation, I think, is to
understand, Mr. Tancredo, that the disease was not even
recognized as an infectious disease for the first ten or so
years that it was recognized, but based on what we have seen in
terms of the patterns of spread within northeastern Colorado,
for example, and southeastern Wyoming, it appears that it is
slowly working its way out and, quite honestly, it has been
there for a while but probably has not been there for hundreds
of years. Based on what we know about movements of deer and elk
in those areas, if it had been there for hundreds of years, it
should be more widespread than it is right now within those
areas, and infection rates, we would guess, might even be
higher than what we are seeing today.
Mr. Tancredo. Like many other diseases, over time, you have
these sporadic infection rates that are high, and then all of a
sudden, we really do not know--at least, certainly I do not
know why--the disease is not eliminated, but it goes back to
some smaller portion of the population. It is cyclical, is what
I am trying to say. How do we know that that has not happened?
Dr. Miller. We have certainly seen no evidence for that in
the places--and we admittedly have not had the luxury of having
decades and decades of experience with this disease--
Mr. Tancredo. Four decades.
Dr. Miller. --in terms of looking at it in the wild. Well,
but again, understand that, really, over about the last 10
years, we have really had the tools and the understanding to
begin looking at it in the wild and what we have seen within
that relatively short time period, compared to the hundreds, if
not thousands, of years that you are talking about is that
there is not any up and down. It seems to hold at a steady rate
or at least slightly increase.
If you look at the disease in confinement settings, which
maybe is just a compression of some of these actions over time,
and this has been repeated several places, several times over
the last 20, 30 years, right now, in our captive mule deer herd
in our research facility in Fort Collins, we cannot keep a deer
alive for more than 5 years in that population. I would wager
that if we went in and tested those deer, that every single
deer in the pens where we have the disease perpetuating is
infected with Chronic Wasting Disease.
I think on a local basis, with small populations and the
way deer structure themselves, and elk, too, to some extent, it
is actually a population whose aggregates are kind of small
family units that come together, but within those small units,
infection rates can be remarkably high. The folks in Nebraska
have been looking at infection rates of somewhere in the range
of 50 percent, I believe, Bruce. In the core of some of our
endemic areas, we have had local populations, as Director
George mentioned, of 20, 30 percent.
So I think if this was a widespread, long-term problem, we
would have seen more cases around the country. You would see
much more uniformity in distribution. The difference with these
diseases between a disease like plague, for example, or some of
the pastrolosis pneumonia type problems that we see,
respiratory disease problems in wild sheep that I spent a
number of years studying, is the host population can develop
some level of resistance. The immune system actually comes into
play in helping create that stalemate between the pathogen and
the host.
To date, we have seen no suggestion that that system, or a
similar system, comes into play with wasting disease in deer.
We have not identified yet groups of deer, genetically or
otherwise, that are resistant to the disease.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you. That is very helpful. You also
mentioned that, in addition, contaminated environments likely--
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Tancredo--
Mr. Tancredo. Oh, I am sorry. Are we out of time? I am
looking at the green light. I am sorry.
Mr. McInnis. They only have one timer up here. Again, I
apologize to the Committee members for interrupting, but I
want--
Mr. Tancredo. That is all right. No. I just--
Mr. McInnis. --all of you to have an opportunity to
question. Ms. Baldwin?
Mr. Tancredo. Could I say just one other thing to Russ
George, and that is that, Russ, your comment that this knows no
State boundary, I told the staff I knew there was an
immigration point here.
[Laughter.]
Mr. George. That was done just for you, Congressman.
Mr. McInnis. Ms. Baldwin?
Ms. Baldwin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really want to thank the panelists for their testimony
because I think all of us can agree that this was an extremely
informative presentation. We are all seeking answers to
questions.
This is an issue that I am deeply concerned about and I
will echo a number of the comments of my colleague with whom I
work closely on this as well as share a border. We are at the
epicenter in Wisconsin of the occurrence of Chronic Wasting
Disease and, consequently, we get lots of questions from
constituents. This disease has an enormous impact on the
families, the economy of our region, the economy of our whole
State.
I do not think constituents ask us questions because they
view us as independent efforts in Chronic Wasting Disease or
view us as having any particular expertise but because we have
access to you and the information that people on the cutting
edge of this are acquiring and disseminating.
I think it is evident from this panel that while we have
been enlightened in many, many respects, there are also so many
questions that remain unanswered. Because my district is ground
zero in Wisconsin for this disease, I am still struggling with
what sort of answers I should provide when I get these urgent
questions.
It is clear from the testimony that there is much that
remains to be done in terms of research, in terms of
understanding, controlling, eradicating, and preventing this
disease, and it is my hope that the Federal agencies and State
agencies will continue to work very closely together, and it is
imperative, of course, that we, as Members of Congress in
affected areas, and, frankly, the Congress at large, be kept
abreast of the latest information as it develops so that we can
play the liaison and informational role that we have been
elected to serve.
The Federal Government, in my opinion, must take an active
role in providing assistance to those on the front line, and
that is with financial resources, research and coordination
with Federal agencies. I am proud to highlight an exceptional
Federal resource that we have in the Second Congressional
District and that is the USGS Wildlife Health Center, and I
certainly want to make sure that we are doing an adequate and,
in fact, more than adequate job of supporting them in their
efforts to combat this disease.
Given the financial stress that this disease places on
States like Wisconsin, which is dealing with financial stresses
of its own, there is such a critical Federal role to play in
providing assistance.
I want to inquire just a little bit further about the
safety and health of my constituents. I can tell you that I was
certainly heartened to hear the words of Mr. George earlier in
his testimony when--I believe I scrawled them down correctly to
say, ``We believe that there is virtually no risk to human
health. We believe there is virtually no risk to other
species.''
You are experts on wildlife health. You said you have been
actively consulting with experts in human health. I am
wondering two things. My grandmother always said to me, ``Err
on the side of caution.'' I do not know why I would advise my
constituents anything else. But I am wondering the sort of
scientific basis for the conclusions that venison presents
virtually no risk to human health and what would you tell my
constituents to do with the venison in their freezer?
Mr. George. Thank you. I am not going to try to answer the
scientific part of your question. I will ask Dr. Miller and Dr.
Thorne to do that. But we cross the line from science to
sociology so quickly that as a manager, I want to share with
you my views about that.
We start from the science of the issue. We must always be
correct about that, be complete about it. But the real
challenge, not only being right, is to communicate that in a
way that people are entitled to believe it and do believe it.
So we have spent a lot of time in recent years talking to the
public about venison and elk for human consumption.
We put in the hands of every hunter that may be taking an
animal in an area where we know there is Chronic Wasting
Disease and we lay out a number of safety and sanitation, if
you will, protocols. We say to them, here are ways that you can
process your meat that might be more sanitary in any respect,
but is also helpful with this disease. For example, we know
that the prions have a tendency to accumulate in the nervous
tissue, so we say, do not cut through the spinal column, do not
invade the brain cavity. Stay away from all that. You can use
gloves. Here is the proper way to care for your equipment.
All of these things are very important, but in the end, the
message is, each individual needs to make his own informed
judgment about it. And so it is our responsibility to have the
facts and to make those facts known.
In your first comment, I think you hit on a very important
subject that has not been really discussed a lot here today and
it is the much broader communication and education piece of
this. It is no less serious with Chronic Wasting Disease than
maybe any other major issue we work on. If we are consistent in
our message, if we are accurate, complete, and consistent
across the country, people will be able to understand better
than before and will be able to make their informed judgment,
and that is all we can do about that. We do not have science
far enough along to be able to say with certainty, but all you
can do is say what you do know and lay it out so that people
can make their decision about it.
Mr. McInnis. Your time is up.
Mr. Osborne?
Mr. Osborne. Thank you for being here this morning. Just a
couple of questions, and I am going to start with Dr. Miller.
You or someone mentioned that once infected animals had been
eliminated from a given area, there is still the disease
apparently present environmentally. I guess that, more than any
other statement that I have heard, concerned me the most
because, obviously, we have a chance to eradicate animals, but
do you have any idea how long the disease would continue to
persist environmentally in an area?
Dr. Miller. We do not have a good absolute measure on that
because right now, we do not have the tools to even be able to
identify the pathogen in the environment. Probably in some
cases, it can be maintained on the order of years. That is why
it is so important to get into these places early and fairly
thoroughly.
The mental model that I use in thinking about this is that
the agent accumulates over time in an area where you have
infected animals. The more infected animals you have and the
longer time those animals are contributing infection to the
environment, the more of a mess you end up with at the end of
the day. So by going in quickly, identifying areas as we have
done in western Colorado and as the folks in Wisconsin have
done, as they have been doing in Nebraska, identifying places
where the disease seems to be localized and eliminating those
animals relatively quickly, you are going to have the best
chance of minimizing environmental contamination.
I also think that it is going to vary somewhat from place
to place, and the areas where we have the most experience with
wasting disease, we have much less water, for example, flowing
through our systems than we do in the Midwest. We have a
relatively arid on the front range of Colorado and in southern
Wyoming where we deal with this disease. It may be that in
places where there are higher volumes of water going through a
system, there is more dilution that will help get rid of the
infectivity, or at least spread it out to where animals are not
going to become infected.
And then managing these populations in a way that you can
eliminate groups of animals and then let repopulation occur
slowly over time--one of the misconceptions is that when you
kill a group of deer, that the rest of the deer are just going
to pull right back into those vacant areas, and, in fact, that
is really not the case. So there will be some time, some buffer
of time that hopefully will allow the disease to work its way
out of the system. It probably goes away over time, but
minimizing the contamination early on is probably the best
strategy.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you. I have one question for Mr.
Morrison. Obviously, Nebraska is a little bit unique in that we
border South Dakota and then, of course, Wyoming and Colorado,
so we are kind of at a juncture of several States there. What
barriers have you experienced or do you see State-to-State that
have interfered with the process? Is there anything that you
see that could be improved in terms of working together? You
mentioned you want to have a cooperative effort, but are there
barriers that you see that have prevented that right now?
Mr. Morrison. Mr. Chairman, Congressman Osborne, no, sir.
Right now, there is a very good effort going on between the
States, including Wisconsin just recently joined us. The basic
only barrier I see is State-driven agency budgets for travel to
meetings and to conferences to learn about the disease, et
cetera, which could be addressed through the Federal program at
times. But as far as the entities working together, it is one
of the best cooperative efforts I have seen in my 30 years of
experience in wildlife management.
Mr. Osborne. One last question. We have talked about
eradication and we have also talked about thinning and I am not
real clear. Wherever the disease is found, is the only solution
that you see just total eradication, or by thinning the
population, do you tend to inhibit the disease or lessen its
spread? I guess anybody who has expertise, I would invite an
answer.
Mr. Morrison. They are looking at me, so I guess I have to
try. The effort in Nebraska, anyway, is--we say eradication. It
is virtually impossible to eradicate a wild deer herd in my
mind. Our plans are to continue thinning that deer herd down to
a point where we do not find CWD in the testing anymore and
leave it at that low level for a period of years, perhaps 5
years, and if we do not find CWD for that time, then let it
buildup.
That is the only method we know of right now to remove CWD
from the area, is remove the deer. There is no known treatment
or anything else.
Mr. Osborne. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Barrett?
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM BARRETT, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS
FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN
Mr. Barrett. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, I want to
thank you for holding this hearing and for your forceful
comments at the beginning of the hearing about the need to have
the Federal agencies coordinate their efforts and respond to
this very serious problem as quickly as possible.
In my 10 years in Congress, I cannot remember another
hearing where a majority of the members of the Wisconsin
delegation have attended the hearing, not to mention the
Governor of the State of Wisconsin and two secretaries from
Wisconsin. That will show you the importance of this issue to
the State of Wisconsin, and the reason for that is quite
simple.
Deer hunting is an integral part of the history, of the
culture, of the economy of the State of Wisconsin and the
threat to the deer population in the State is a threat to the
State itself. Similarly, I think the fact that we have half of
the delegation from Colorado here and a third of the delegation
from Nebraska here shows that other States also consider this
to be a very, very serious problem that demands a quick
response.
What I am most concerned about today is the lack of
response that we have gotten from the U.S. Department of
Agriculture. On March 20, all nine members of the Wisconsin
delegation wrote to the Secretary of Agriculture and asked her
to immediately release $4 million of emergency funds to the
State of Wisconsin so that we can respond to this crisis. It is
now May 16. There is still no written response.
My understanding is that the Secretary's office contacted
Congressman Kind's office last night about 5 to inform him that
the money would not be forthcoming because the Department wants
to take a national approach to this rather than, apparently, a
State-by-State approach. I have to remind the Department of
Agriculture that Colorado, Wisconsin, Wyoming, Nebraska are all
part of the United States, and to the extent that this is a
problem in these States, this is a national problem.
The implication is somehow if we want the money to go to
the States, that it is pork barrel spending and for that
reason, the money will not be forthcoming. I can tell you at
least what I will do and what I believe the other members of
the delegation from the State of Wisconsin will do. We will
continue to fight for this funding. If we cannot get it
directly from the Department of Agriculture, we will try to get
it through legislative channels.
Ironically, we will do this at a time when the White House
is complaining about the add-ons that are coming from Congress,
that somehow we should not, as Representatives to Congress, be
adding on additional spending beyond what the White House is
doing, and if we do so, that it is pork barrel spending.
In my mind, this is not a fight over pork. This is a fight
over venison and we will do everything we can to make sure that
we get the funds in the State of Wisconsin to have the testing,
to have the assistance that is necessary for us to eradicate
this disease.
It is an issue that I think the Governor takes very
seriously, and I thank you for your leadership at the State
level. I think that the State now clearly recognizes that there
is a problem and has been acting quickly. I am troubled by the
reports that Mr. Inslee referred to, but this is not the time
for that discussion. The time now is for us to act together, to
act on a bipartisan basis, which is being done in the State of
Wisconsin, but equally important, the Federal Government has to
recognize that it is a partner in this fight.
I want to quickly just read from a statement that was made
by Scott Craven of the University of Wisconsin-Madison when he
told USA Today, ``If we do not seize this chance and CWD
spreads in Wisconsin, decimates the deer herds, or spreads to
adjoining States, I believe in five, ten, or 20 years, history
will not judge us kindly.''
The Federal Government must be a strong partner in
Wisconsin's effort to combat Chronic Wasting Disease. That is
why I thank you all for being here today. Again, I thank you,
Mr. Chairman, for your leadership on this, but I want the
Federal Government to be a partner in this and it has to happen
quickly.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back the balance of my
time.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Barrett follows:]
Statement of Hon. Tom Barrett, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Wisconsin
Thank you, Chairman Gilchrest and Chairman McInnis, Congressman
Underwood and Congressman Inslee. I appreciate your having scheduled
today's hearing, and I appreciate the opportunity to share with the
Subcommittees the very grave concerns of Wisconsin hunters and
conservationists.
I will not reiterate for you the chilling clinical dangers of
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). You have invited gifted expert witnesses
who can more than adequately address those important issues.
Instead, let me emphasize how important this issue is for the
people of the State of Wisconsin.
As you know, CWD has been found for years in the deer herds of
Colorado, Wyoming, and Nebraska. But because those states have
relatively sparse herds, with typical population densities of 2 to 5
deer per square mile, the contagion posed a limited threat to the whole
herd.
But as the U.S. Geological Survey has reported, it was the
detection of CWD in the wild white-tailed deer herds of Wisconsin that
brought concerns over the disease to a crisis level. This is because,
unlike western states, Wisconsin's two-million-plus deer herd populates
some parts of our state at densities conservatively estimated at over
75 animals per square mile. No one knows how rapidly CWD will spread
among deer at these densities or what long term effect the disease will
have on a herd that big.
Recent news reports have highlighted the very troublesome
possibility that, though State of Wisconsin officials were aware of the
danger posed by infected herds in Western states, they did nothing to
restrict importation of potentially infected deer into Wisconsin or to
limit the interaction of game farm animals and wild deer. This
important concern certainly warrants investigation.
What is most important, however, is that Wisconsin officials are
now taking this very serious threat very seriously. In an unprecedented
step, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has asked private
landowners to hunt over 15,000 deer in a 287-square-mile eradication
zone around the outbreak's epicenter, near Mount Horeb in southern
Wisconsin. State wildlife officials are also planning to dramatically
extend the fall deer hunting season. A hunt that traditionally runs
nine days will run from October through January, in an effort to
eliminate all deer in the area.
At the request of concerned state legislators, Governor McCallum
has called a special legislative session on CWD. The legislature is
considering an agreement that would direct $4 million in emergency
state funding for the fight against the disease.
But the state desperately needs help from the Federal Government to
meet the challenge. According to published estimates, Wisconsin
officials will need at least $22.5 million over the next three years to
finance the emergency plan.
Wisconsin's entire Congressional delegation joined together in
March, asking Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman to release $4 million
in emergency Commodity Credit Corporation funding to help Wisconsin
officials respond to the immediate crisis. Wisconsin's delegation has
also spoken with one voice in support of the Bush Administration's
request for $7.233 million in CWD funding for 2003. Since our initial
request, I have learned that internal USDA estimates now suggest that
2003 funding of no less than $15 million will be required to respond to
CWD.
We acted quickly and decisively because the stakes are tremendously
high in Wisconsin, in both personal and economic terms. Deer hunting
has always been a defining aspect of the state's culture and sporting
heritage. It has been and remains a way for parents and children share
a family tradition, and an estimated 700,000 hunters share that
tradition in Wisconsin every year. And deer hunting is also critical to
Wisconsin's economy. According to published reports, each year's hunt
also brings an estimated $233 million in retail sales revenue to our
state and, in total, contributes more than $1 billion to Wisconsin's
economy.
I am very disappointed that Secretary Veneman has not yet responded
to the united call of Wisconsin's Congressional delegation for Federal
emergency assistance on this critical issue. I wrote to her yesterday,
reiterating our request and asking that she consider taking several
additional steps to bolster the Federal response to this crisis. I am
hopeful that she will see that Wisconsin cannot afford further delay.
My colleagues, the threat in Wisconsin is very real and very
pressing. As Scott Craven of the University of Wisconsin-Madison told
USA Today, ``If we don't seize this chance and CWD spreads in
Wisconsin, decimates the deer herd or spreads to adjoining states, I
believe in five, 10 or 20 years, history will not judge us kindly.''
The Federal Government must be a strong partner in Wisconsin's effort
to combat Chronic Wasting Disease. I ask that the House Resources
Committee act quickly to express its strong support for the funding
requests submitted by Wisconsin's Congressional delegation.
______
Mr. McInnis. Thank you.
Mr. Green?
Mr. Green. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also thank you for
holding the hearing today and for the legislation that you are
putting together. I think it will make the Federal Government a
partner, as my colleague, Mr. Barrett, just referred to. I
think that is the critical part of the answer.
Obviously from the hearing today, we are dealing with a
challenge that has so many facets to it. We have had academic
discussions. We have had discussions about long-term research,
and I think those are all important. You could have a series of
hearings on Chronic Wasting Disease and I think we would find
something new each time.
But I think in terms of my constituents who we are going to
be going out hunting, thousands of them this fall, they want to
know something very simple. They want to know that the deer
that they shoot, that the deer that they kill is safe. That is
the question that they want answered.
I commend Governor McCallum. Governor, you have been
Governor for just over a year and you have moved quickly on
what is a difficult challenge. Could you reiterate for us, for
me, how you plan on helping to meet that problem of the testing
capacity, which I think for our constituents, yours and mine,
will be the crucial question that they ask.
Governor McCallum. Congressman, thank you for the question.
You are correct, it is the crucial question, because those of
us that are hunters, it is the first thing that comes to our
mind. I think there is a tendency for us to think of it in
terms of what we would do to personalize it.
That is why one of the requests I have had of the Federal
Government is the certification for the fast test process. I
would like to see in the State not only the State lab for
testing, but I would like to see the private sector set up so
that individual hunters can take their venison in for the quick
test. And again, this quick test that we are looking for
certification for is much like--I would use the analogy like
the pregnancy testing. It is not as reliable. It is less
expensive, much quicker. It is not within 24 hours that you
need to get the brain and send it off for the testing and wait
several weeks. It can be done much faster.
So having that certification take place would allow us to
move more rapidly with the private sector and with that type of
testing set up around the State. I would like to see that in
place by hunting season.
Mr. Green. Governor, I am sure I speak for the whole
delegation. Anything we can do to help you in that process of
getting certification, we stand ready to do. Thank you,
Governor.
A question for Mr. George. You talked about various aspects
of the challenge and Colorado's response. Let me ask you about
carcass disposal, because that is an issue that I am also
concerned about. We hear lots of discussion about what the
right approach is, whether it is landfill, whether it is
incineration. I know there are some new technologies. What has
Colorado's approach been and what have been the results? What
has been the experience?
Mr. George. Thank you, Congressman. The preferred method of
disposal for infected carcasses is either incineration or
chemical digestion. I do not think anyone wants to bury
infected carcasses anywhere in the ground.
Now, many landfills in Colorado are designed to meet the
health requirements that would be sufficient for containing
within the depository any infected animal, and so far, there
are no regulations that prevent it. But we think that the
better judgment is not to put infected carcasses into
landfills.
But bear in mind, in all of these instances, we are
talking--in the Western Slope incident, we had 99 out of 100
not infected animals, healthy animals killed. Of course, you
have to kill the healthy along with the infected. There is no
other way to do it. So the question for that local community
was not whether they were concerned about putting 99 out of 100
healthy carcasses in their landfill, but they are designed to
only take a few a day in order to cover it that night. So it
was a matter of quantity, not necessarily health concerns.
But we intend to incinerate anything that is infected. We
do not have such an incinerator. The Colorado Department of
Agriculture recently acquired one. It is somewhat low volume,
needs a hole to be dug for it. It is just unwieldy. But we
intend to have available with the expenditure of resources
sufficient incineration capability that that is how we
recommend disposing of these animals.
Mr. Green. I see I am out of time, Mr. Chairman. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Green.
Mr. Udall?
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to
thank you for holding this important hearing today. It has been
very, very helpful to me, as I think it has been to my
colleagues.
I wanted to direct a question initially to Dr. Miller. My
colleague, Mr. Tancredo, talked a little bit about, in effect,
natural genetic selection possibly being at play. You are going
to hear some testimony later, I think, or at least it will be
included in the record, from Dr. Southwick, who is a professor
at the University of Colorado, suggesting that some of the
herds west of Boulder, which is an area in my district, appear
to have low transmission rates and that perhaps one of the
dangers we face in eradicating whole herds is that we may be
eliminating those deer who could be not susceptible to this
transmission of this disease.
Could you just speak to that concern?
Dr. Miller. Certainly, Congressman. To date, the work that
has been done, both with live animals and also looking at
genetic evidence of resistance in deer, in particular, has
failed to demonstrate any resistance. Now, that is not to say
that on occasion, an animal somehow makes it through a life in
our research facilities, the research facilities in Wyoming,
without becoming infected. But the number of animals that go
that route are few and very far between.
Right now, in the absence of some way to assure that that
process is going to occur and occur in a timely fashion, kind
of waiting around for nature to help us out on this seems ill
advised. Certainly, if we had a mechanism for identifying a
genetic strain of deer that were resistant to wasting disease
or some way of promoting resistance in deer, I can assure you,
everybody sitting at this table would be happy to take
advantage of that and apply that as part of their management
strategies.
But right now, we are very limited with the tools that we
have available, and in terms of trying to contain the disease,
we are doing the best we can with the tools that we have. The
fact that there have been relatively few cases in Boulder
County may be less a function of those animals being resistant
to disease. It is just the fact that the disease has not been
there very long. Geographically, that is what it would suggest.
So the fact that infection rates are really low--a few years
ago, in our research facility, the infection rates were very
low, as well, and now they are in excess of 90 percent again.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Of course, people in Colorado think
there are unusual people in Boulder County, so maybe there are
unusual deer in Boulder County, as well.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Udall of Colorado. It is really a pleasure to see my
old colleague, Russ George, here. Those of you who do not know
him should know that he served as the Speaker of our State
House and with great distinction. It is great to see you here,
Director George.
Mr. George. Thank you, Congressman.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. I know we worked together on the
Natural Resources and Livestock Committee. We spent a lot of
time on the three Ws--weeds, whirling disease, and wasting
disease, and we also spent a lot of time talking about the
appropriate State and Federal and local roles when it came to
governance.
I want to associate myself with Mr. Barrett's comments
about the need for the Federal Government to step up quickly
and go to work, but I also wanted to ask you, what should the
Federal Government not do? Where would the Federal Government
make this a greater problem or where would it get in the way of
what the States are doing?
Mr. George. Thank you, Mr. Udall. We need to be equal
partners and not have a question of Federal primacy arise in
the discussion. The Federal Government should be involved
whenever we have an issue of national concern, but there is not
any reason in this instance for the Federal Government to be
more than a partner providing resource coordination, guidance,
assistance.
Wildlife are local. Wildlife are traditionally managed at
the State level, and there is no reason to change that even
though we have this new challenge. So I would ask that whatever
we do at the Federal level, in the first instance, recognize
the role of the States as the primary wildlife manager, and I
think the same would be true for the domestic captive wildlife
industry, as well. It is also localized, and State departments
of agriculture ought to have the lead in all of that.
But we are all in this together, Mr. Udall, and I think
that is the point of your question and the response I want to
make. There is no reason for competition among any of us,
whether it is Federal versus State or whether it is agency
versus agency. In order to accomplish our necessary goals here,
we all need to row together from the moment we start, and that
is what I would hope will happen here.
Mr. Udall of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, thank you again for
holding the hearing and I look forward to working with you.
This is a very important issue for the State of Colorado and
all the other States that are involved. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Udall. That concludes the
questioning by the Committee. I want to thank all the members
of the panel. This is very informative. I would also ask for
the courtesy of you responding to any additional written
questions or inquiry by Members of Congress or their staff. So
thank you very much. We appreciate it.
Mr. George. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Committee.
Mr. McInnis. The Committee is going to stand in recess just
for 5 minutes to allow the second and third panels to take
their seats. Those are the two panels that we will combine. So
if Mr. Groat, Mr. Butler, Mr. Zebarth, Mr. Wolfe, and Mr.
Pacelle would come forward.
[Recess.]
Mr. McInnis. The Committee will come back to order.
I welcome the second and third panel. Again, obviously, a
couple of our panel members are members of Federal agencies. I
would hope, and I am confident that the agencies have gotten
the message, one, about the primacy, two, about the urgency of
the matter, and I would hope that the panel members can take
time to address that, as well as I am sure they heard my
introductory remarks about the necessity of some type of plan
of action be drawn as to what the coordination of the Federal
agencies should look like.
So with that in mind, why do we not start with the
Department of Interior. Mr. Groat, thank you for coming today.
I appreciate your time. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES G. ``CHIP'' GROAT, DIRECTOR, U.S.
GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR; ACCOMPANIED
BY RANDY BOWMAN, SPECIAL ASSISTANT TO THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY,
FISH, WILDLIFE, AND PARKS; AND RANDY JONES, DEPUTY DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL PARK SERVICE
Mr. Groat. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My name is Chip Groat.
I am Director of the U.S. Geological Survey and I am pleased to
have the opportunity to present the views and opinions of the
Department of the Interior on this important topic.
I think all of us heard your message very clearly and we
heard several messages from members of the previous panel,
first of all and foremost that the management of the
populations affected by this disease are clearly a State
responsibility, whether we are talking about farmed herds or
free-ranging herds.
Second, the importance of research--as you said, research,
research, research--in clearing up the lack of understanding
that we have, and this was demonstrated in the answers to many
of the questions that were posed. We manage best if we
understand, and there are so many areas of this critical
disease that we do not understand that research is certainly a
key part of dealing with those uncertainties.
I think another part of the message that we heard that goes
along with maximizing the research effort is the word very
strongly that the Federal agencies who have different
clienteles, in one sense, and in some sense different and
overlapping capabilities coordinate very closely in making sure
that our efforts are maximized and also that our ability to
support the States in providing understandings and providing
funding is put together very clearly.
I think the characterization that was pointed out by Mr.
Russell, that the Department of Agriculture and the Department
of Interior have complementary capabilities in some sense and
complementary interests in certain aspects of the research, yet
work with the States through different avenues, through
departments of agriculture, and in the case of the Department
of the Interior, through the State fish and wildlife agencies,
in cooperation with the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, just points out that we do have to make use
of all of these avenues in a coordinated fashion in supporting
the States' efforts.
Dr. Miller's point that many universities are involved in
the research effort already, that there are some funding paths
available for them, but that more funding is needed for both
their work, and in our case and Agriculture's work, for our own
in-house researchers to deal with this is a critical point,
too.
So the coordination message, Mr. Chairman, is very clear
from a Federal agency point of view and we would like to
emulate the States and their abilities that they have
demonstrated to work together.
The States' primary responsibility for management of this
is an important place to start. The only aspect different from
that that the Department of the Interior would bring is that
the Department of Interior has responsibility for managing one
of every five acres of country in the United States, and so we
do have some in-house interest and responsibility in our parks,
our wildlife refuges, for wildlife, free-ranging wildlife herds
on those properties and that even there, that is not a uniquely
Federal responsibility, that in many cases these
responsibilities work in concert with States and State
interests.
The fact that free-ranging wildlife do not recognize
political boundaries includes State/Federal boundaries and,
therefore, the need to coordinate closely with the States in
this regard is extremely important.
In describing the research capabilities, the USGS Wildlife
Health Center in Madison, Wisconsin, is the only Federal
research facility specializing in wildlife disease and is
uniquely positioned to work in the field with fish and wildlife
agencies in dealing with that, as well as the Federal Land
Management Agency. Through the USGS Madison Center, we have
cooperative activities with the States and other Federal
agencies in relation to other diseases, such as the West Nile
virus, the Newcastle disease, avian cholera, botulism, and
others.
We recognize the critical importance of understanding the
causes, the pathways, the mechanisms of transmission of these
diseases and we recognize that those pathways and transmissions
in wildlife populations that are free-ranging may have
different dynamics than those that are in wildlife populations
that are farmed. Therefore, the critical importance of
understanding both domains, and where we can contribute
uniquely to the understanding of free-ranging populations and
their behaviors in cooperation with our State partners, we are
willing to work closely with Agriculture in their efforts to
deal with their aspects of it.
We also recognize that information, as many members have
pointed out in their questions, to the public and to each other
is a critical part of dealing with this issue. Our
understandings from a scientific point of view, from a
management point of view, from the impacts on wildlife on
domestic livestock and on people, and what we do and do not
know must be understood, must be communicated effectively with
the public and with our partners, both the State and the
Federal level. So we are looking forward very much to working
with the Department of Agriculture and with our State partners
in developing an integrated information system that allows us
to understand the extent, the transmission, and what we do and
do not know about this disease so we can inform each other and
the public about this.
I think you will be pleased to know, and I am sure Dr.
Butler will reinforce this, that we heard your message and we
anticipated your message and that the Department of Agriculture
and the Department of the Interior have already agreed to form
a working group to coordinate this. In fact, the first meeting
of that group will take place within the next few days. It is
both at the highest level of management and it is at the
highest level of science, so we are encouraged that we are not
having any trouble at all getting together on this issue.
I want to point out that, so far, on the lands managed by
the Federal Government, the only occurrences that have been
demonstrated at this point is on one particular reserve of the
National Park Service, which was mentioned before, and the fact
that the Park Service has responded to this and--excuse me, the
Rocky Mountain National Park is the only unit that has been
affected and that the National Park Service is providing
funding itself for three projects related to Chronic Wasting
Disease and is taking an active role, both on its own lands and
in supporting the research effort.
So far, there are no known cases of Chronic Wasting Disease
on National Wildlife Refuges lands. Regardless of that, the
Fish and Wildlife Service is critically interested in using its
relationships with State wildlife agencies as manifested, in
cooperation with the International Association of Fish and
Wildlife Agencies, to be a conduit for trading and dealing with
management information related to those herds, which they have
understandings of and which the States are responsible for. So
in that sense, that part of the Department of the Interior will
play a critical role in assisting the States with information
and capabilities as they have in the past.
Let me conclude by saying our stewardship and our
cooperative relationship with the States dictate that we step
forward to address this problem. We understand our
responsibilities in terms of research and in terms of
collaboration with the State managers of these wildlife
populations and look forward to working as a Federal family, as
well as with our States and universities, in dealing with this
enormously important, critical disease. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Groat. I would be interested in
the question and answer portion what the Rocky Mountain
National Park's response is going to be if, in fact, you find a
wasting disease animal. Are they going to allow eradication?
Mr. Groat. I have Mr. Randy Jones, Assistant Director of
the National Park Service with us. If you want him to answer
now or during the question period, I am sure he would be happy
to do that.
Mr. McInnis. Yes, real quickly. I would be interested. Can
you give me a response to that?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir. For at least the last 6 years, at
Rocky Mountain National Park we have had a standing policy that
any animal that exhibits the symptoms of Chronic Wasting
Disease, that animal is taken, it is turned over to Colorado
State University for necropsy, and the State is informed. It
has resulted in a handful of animals taken and we have been
cooperating with the State and a variety of research programs
going on in the park.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Groat.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Groat follows:]
Statement of Charles G. Groat, Director, U.S. Geological Survey,
Department of the Interior
Mr. Chairmen and Members of the Subcommittees, thank you for this
opportunity to provide the Department of the Interior's (Department)
views regarding the emerging issue of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in
deer and elk. The Department is very concerned about the potential
effects this disease could have on captive and free-roaming deer and
elk and on the economies of affected areas of our country. The
Administration believes that meaningful cooperation and coordination
with the states is vital to addressing this matter.
In addition, the Administration believes that it is critical for
the Federal agencies involved to work in concert on this important
issue. It is important that we work together to protect wildlife
resources and maintain healthy wild populations of these animals. The
Department has the skills and expertise to assist the states in the
conduct of research to detect and characterize this unusual disease, to
provide research and monitoring facilities, and to assist in other
appropriate ways. Only through coordination, communication, and
cooperation within the Federal family, with the states, and with
stakeholders will we succeed in managing this issue.
CWD is a disease known to be found in mule deer, elk, and white-
tailed deer. CWD is fatal to both deer and elk. The disease's cause,
transmission route, and treatment methodologies are unknown, although
associated with altered protein structures (called prions) in the
lymphatic system and brain. The recent detection of CWD in wild white-
tailed deer in Wisconsin, the first known occurrence east of the
Mississippi, increases the urgency in investigating and controlling
this disease. Chronic Wasting Disease is not known to occur in humans
or domestic cattle or sheep.
The Department recognizes that states have primary responsibility
for management of cervids and other resident species within their
borders, including mule deer, elk, and white-tailed deer. With
particular reference to hunting and harvesting, for instance, states
set deer and elk hunting regulations--length of season, harvest
methods, and limits--and have established wildlife management programs,
generally housed within state fish and game or natural resource
agencies.
The Department manages roughly one in every five acres of land in
the United States and has stewardship responsibilities for natural
resources on these lands. Through the National Park Service, Fish and
Wildlife Service, Bureau of Land Management, and Bureau of Indian
Affairs, the Department provides assistance to, cooperates with and, in
some cases, co-manages with states to ensure healthy, viable wildlife
populations. Free-roaming wildlife do not recognize jurisdictional
boundaries. The Department shares thousands of miles of coterminous
boundaries with state, private, and other Federal lands. To
successfully combat this disease we must employ an approach in the wild
and in captive herds that respects the varied roles of Federal and
state agencies, as well as affected landowners, while also bringing the
strengths of each respective entity to bear on the challenge we face.
Populations of deer and elk in a number of states and Canada have
tested positive for CWD. Many states, like Colorado and Wisconsin, are
in urgent need of basic information about CWD transmission and methods
for control and prevention.
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) is the principal science and
research agency for the Department. The USGS National Wildlife Health
Center (the Madison Center) is the only Federal research facility
specializing in wildlife disease research and is uniquely positioned to
work with state fish and wildlife agencies, as well as Federal land
management agencies. Since 1975, the Center has provided research,
training, and technical assistance to states and other Federal agencies
related to the diagnosis, prevention, and management of wildlife
diseases in naturally occurring populations. Through the Madison
Center, the USGS has coordinated activities with states and other
Federal agencies on critical disease outbreaks such as West Nile Virus,
Newcastle disease, avian cholera, botulism, and others.
The Department stands ready to assist with research, monitoring,
information, and technical assistance roles in combating this disease
in free-ranging deer and elk with our state partners. As more states
detect CWD in their wild herds, they will need reliable information in
a timely manner. As research reveals more clues about the disease, that
information needs to be available rapidly to benefit state and Federal
efforts in controlling the disease. The Department can and does
develop, utilize and share research knowledge and assist nationally in
monitoring and surveillance programs to help ensure that the most
appropriate response strategies are shared among wildlife managers in
state and Federal agencies. The Department, through the National
Wildlife Health Center, can establish a forum for technical
information, including issues such as depopulating procedures, non-
lethal testing procedures, disposal of infected carcasses, and worker
safety.
The Department and the Department of Agriculture have agreed to
form a Joint Federal CWD Working Group. The Working Group's mission
will be to assist the states in a cooperative and coordinated manner.
Leadership will be comprised of one person each from the Departments of
Interior and Agriculture and key officials from each bureau or agency
within those two Departments.
Currently, the Department is working with Colorado, Wisconsin, and
other state fish and wildlife agencies in developing cooperative and
synergistic research and control programs that are urgently needed for
Chronic Wasting Disease. For instance, although a new diagnostic
technique using tonsil tissue instead of brain tissue has been
developed for live deer, this technique is not applicable to elk.
Currently, this technique is best suited to captive animals. The
Department proposes to participate with the state wildlife agencies to
assist in a national program for the detection and management of CWD in
wild herds of deer and elk.
The Department's land management bureaus can contribute to the
application of science in the cooperative management of Federal lands
under their control. The National Park Service, which manages more than
84 million acres contained in 385 park units, is extremely concerned
about CWD and the potential impacts this disease could have upon the
wildlife resources of the parks and adjacent lands and the ability of
park visitors to view wildlife. To date, Rocky Mountain National Park
is the only unit of the National Park System that is known to have elk
and deer infected with the disease. However, Wind Cave National Park in
South Dakota, and Agate Fossil Beds and Scotts Bluff National Monuments
in Nebraska are at high risk of infection because the disease was
recently detected in nearby wild deer and elk or in nearby facilities
for captive rearing deer and elk.
Chronic Wasting Disease, which is not endemic to Rocky Mountain
National Park, was first discovered in the park in 1981. The prevalence
of infection for deer, based on samples taken in the park is about 5-
6%, the same for animals outside the park. The prevalence of the
disease in elk, less than 1%, is believed to be the same for elk
outside the park. For the past seven years, both the Colorado Division
of Wildlife (CDOW) and the National Park Service have been
collaborating on research projects, conducting surveillance of deer and
elk movements, cooperating on capturing deer to obtain tonsillar
biopsies for CWD testing, removing infected animals, and developing
joint strategies for management of the disease. Recently the CDOW was
asked to work with the park as a cooperator developing a Chronic
Wasting Disease Management Plan and environmental impact statement for
the Rocky Mountain National Park area. Federal and state funds will be
used to support this effort.
This week, the National Park Service has approved for funding three
projects related to CWD in two national parks. Two projects will be
conducted in Rocky Mountain National Park. One of those projects will
develop a management plan, and the other will implement interim
management actions. In Wind Cave National Park, a study is planned to
detect the occurrence and transmission of the disease in deer within
and near the park. Animals will be monitored for movement patterns,
including dispersal and migration, and other factors relevant to CWD.
To date, there are no known cases of CWD on National Wildlife
Refuge lands. Regardless, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the
CDOW recently agreed to jointly address CWD if, and when, it occurs on
National Wildlife Refuge lands. This will include survey, testing, and
active management, including any necessary efforts to depopulate
infected herds.
The Department's stewardship role and cooperative relationship with
states dictate that it step forward to help address this problem.
Without coordination of information collected by Federal and state
agencies, information provided by new research, and the means to
rapidly disseminate that information to state agencies and Federal land
managers, this disease could further impact wild deer and elk
populations and have an impact on local economies.
Mr. Chairmen, this concludes my written statement and I will be
pleased to respond to any questions you might have.
______
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79658.010
[The response to questions submitted for the record by the
U.S. Geological Survey follows:]
U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY ANSWERS TO SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FROM MAY 16
OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
Questions from the Minority:
1. Some researchers speculate that CWD stems from deer used in a
nutritional study at the Fort Collins research stations where
CWD was first detected in 1967. Some believe they were fed
sheep with scrapie or lived on scrapie-contaminated ground.
What is your reaction to this theory? Is there any way to prove
this?
Several hypotheses exist as to the origin of Chronic Wasting
Disease (CWD), which include (1) spontaneous alteration of a protein
(prion) and subsequent transmission to susceptible deer and elk; (2) a
strain of scrapie that adapted to cervids; or (3) disease from an
unknown prion strain. There is little scientific evidence that supports
any of these hypotheses. Links to scrapie involve potential exposure of
experimental deer and elk to scrapie contaminated facilities. There is
no documentation that suggests that deer and elk were fed diets
containing sheep products, only suppositions. Other speculation
includes the possibility that the animals were diseased when they
arrived at the experimental facility; that the experimental animals had
contact with free-ranging animals while at the facility; or that there
was contact with other captive animals (both wild and domestic),
possibly shipped from outside the immediate area, harboring the
disease. Alternatively, models by the Colorado Division of Wildlife
suggest that the epicenter of the outbreak is well north of Fort
Collins and the research pens in question. The origin of CWD will
likely never be determined. Research on transmission pathways may
provide some evidence regarding the disease's origin and is also
urgently needed to help us understand the potential risks.
2. Does it make sense for the Federal government to cost share with the
States on research? What is an appropriate cost share?
An Interagency Task Force on CWD is preparing a plan to implement
the actions described in the June 26, 2002, report titled ``Plan for
Assisting States, Federal Agencies, and Tribes in Managing Chronic
Wasting Disease in Wild and Captive Cervids.'' The Implementation Plan
will address possible cost-share options. A number of Federal agencies
in the U.S. Department of the Interior (DOI) and the U.S. Department of
Agriculture (USDA) have responsibilities for issues presented by CWD.
In a few cases, these agencies have management or regulatory authority,
such as in management of certain public lands or livestock disease
control issues. However, since this is primarily a state
responsibility, it is expected that the Federal role, working in
cooperation with the States and Tribes, will be to conduct and support
research, conduct surveillance where appropriate (e.g., on Federal
lands), and provide technical assistance, communication, and education
programs. Under these circumstances, a cost share arrangement may prove
to be most effective, but the Task Force has not yet addressed this
question.
3. Is the slaughter of animals or ``depopulation'' necessary? Is it a
proven effective strategy?
There have been few well-studied efforts to control a disease of
this magnitude in populations of free-ranging large mammals in the
United States and, therefore, there is not a proven effective strategy
for controlling disease in free-ranging deer and elk populations.
Several management strategies for controlling CWD have been suggested
(e.g., targeted removal, testing and culling, depopulation in focused
areas, etc.), however, at the present time none of these methods have
been scientifically evaluated in order to predict which management
strategies are likely to be successful.
4. What progress is being made on urine or fecal tests for CWD? How
soon will we have better capabilities for live tests?
At present, the focus of nearly all of the testing development for
CWD is for animal tissues. There are several enzyme-linked
immunosorbent assay (ELISA)-based plate assays under development of
which none have been validated. There is a considerable effort,
scheduled to begin this fall, that will attempt to validate at least
some of these high throughput tests, but these efforts are dependent
upon the availability of positive control tissues, which are in short
supply. There is the report of a urine test, which has been developed
overseas, for the detection of the causative agents for BSE (Mad Cow
Disease) in humans and cattle. Other investigators are assessing the
validity of this urine test in humans and cattle. However, no one knows
if this test will work for CWD and this also would have to go through
the same validation procedures as the ELISA-based tests.
There is currently too little known about this disease to develop a
test that can be conducted ``at the animal'' with instant results for
either live or dead animals. In concept, a live animal test is very
attractive. In terms of practicality, the use and further development
of live animal tests will likely have the greatest and most immediate
advantage to testing in captive wildlife settings (game farms) or for
specific management applications, such as National Parks, where large-
scale depopulation is not an option. Under captive settings, animals
can be captured and released into an enclosure where they cannot
escape. These animals can be held for extended periods until test
results are obtained, at which time positive animals can be more easily
re-captured and killed. In most wild settings, the capturing and re-
capturing of live animals is resource intensive and dangerous to both
animals and personnel. Without a rapid field test, captured animals
would have to be released, tagged or radio collared, and culled when
test results confirm infection (cost estimates for this process run
between $400 and $600 per animal, depending on the method of capture
used).
5. Some States, such as Nebraska, seek funding for double fencing at
game farms. Is double fencing an effective tool in CWD
management?
In theory, double fencing should be an effective way to prevent
direct contact between wild and captive cervids, provided that the
separation is complete and no other means of transmission across this
barrier exists. However, because the transmission routes for CWD are
not known, we cannot guarantee that this method will prevent
transmission. Moreover, this method will not address the issue of
translocation (intra or interstate) of CWD infected captive or wild
cervids. The continued improvement of certification protocols and
testing methods, including a ban or moratorium on the shipment of deer
and elk across State boundaries would provide other effective tools in
CWD management.
6. Are tonsillar biopsies as accurate as brainstem tests in detecting
Chronic Wasting Disease infection? Can't biopsies detect
infection even earlier than the brain pathology?
Biopsies or removal of lymphoid tissues (tonsils and some lymph
nodes) are tested by the same test used on brain stem samples (obex).
These tissues can be just as sensitive indicators of the disease as
brain samples in deer (white-tailed and mule), but not in elk. This
disease can be detected at earlier stages from lymphoid tissues (tonsil
and some lymph nodes) than from brain in deer. Therefore, it is
possible to have a positive tonsil test result with a negative brain
test result early in the course of the disease. In captive deer,
positive tonsillar biopsy was observed 2 to 20 months before CWD-
related death and up to 14 months before onset of clinical signs of
CWD.
7. What do we know about the incubation, perpetuation and transmission
of the disease?
Most of what is known about the incubation, perpetuation, and
transmission of CWD has come from studies on captive deer and elk, and
much more remains to be determined. The incubation period for CWD in
deer and elk is estimated to be 18 to 24 months and may be longer. As
testing methods improve, younger animals (as young as 6 months old)
have been shown to be incubating the disease. The period of
infectivity, that is, when an animal is shedding infective material, is
not known, but may occur over an extended period, even when the animal
appears healthy. CWD is transmitted from animal to animal and likely
from contaminated environments to animals. Transmission likely occurs
via excretions, secretions, and from decomposition of infected
carcasses. Anecdotal accounts suggest that contaminated environments
may remain a threat for infection of deer and elk for extended periods,
potentially years. The smallest amount of infective material that is
required to produce disease is not known. The effects of animal density
on disease transmission are not fully understood, but areas of very
high animal density (e.g., at feeding or baiting stations) present an
increased opportunity for spread of the disease.
______
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Butler?
STATEMENT OF JAMES G. BUTLER, DEPUTY UNDER SECRETARY, MARKETING
AND REGULATORY PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
AGRICULTURE; ACCOMPANIED BY RON DEHAVEN, D.V.M., DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR FOR VETERINARY SERVICES, ANIMAL AND PLANT HEALTH
INSPECTION SERVICE; CAIRD REXROAD, PH.D., ACTING ASSOCIATE
ADMINISTRATOR, AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH SERVICE; AND PHIL SCHWAB,
PH.D., LEGISLATIVE DIRECTOR, COOPERATIVE STATE RESEARCH
EDUCATION AND EXTENSION SERVICE
Mr. Butler. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have been present
throughout the discussion this morning and certainly listened
and learned from the topics. We plan to cooperate in every
effort.
I would like to submit my statement for the record and I
will summarize comments from the Department of Agriculture.
There are three agencies within USDA currently involved in
studying CWD: first, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection
Service, which has the authority to deal with livestock
diseases and to manage wildlife damage; second, the
Agricultural Research Service, which is currently conducting
CWD research; and finally, the Cooperative State Research
Education and Extension Service, which provides grants to
universities to conduct research in specific areas of CWD.
Surveillance for CWD has been a cooperative effort with
State agriculture and wildlife agencies and USDA. Farmed cervid
surveillance has been increasing since 1997 as an integral part
of the USDA program to eliminate CWD from farmed elk, and to
establish a certificate program for herds free of the disease.
Since 1997, CWD has been diagnosed in 20 farmed elk herds in
six States, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and
South Dakota.
In September 2001, Secretary Veneman signed a declaration
of emergency for CWD, which allowed APHIS to seek Commodity
Credit Corporation funds. Since September, APHIS has received a
total of $14.8 million in CCC funds, which have been used for
CWD indemnity payments, testing, disposal, and surveillance.
The APHIS indemnity program is voluntary and producers who
choose not to have an eligible herd depopulated are not
required by APHIS to do so. Under this program, indemnity
amounts are determined by an appraisal. USDA is paying up to 95
percent of the fair market value for these depopulated animals
up to $3,000 of the appraised value of each animal.
Additionally, in April of 2002, USDA agreed to buy out and
depopulate exposed farmed elk herds in the area of Colorado
where free-ranging animals have tested positive for the
disease. Elk owners who agree to indemnity are allowed to
restock their land only with non-cervid ruminants, like cattle
and sheep. We will consider requests from other States based on
availability of funding.
One thing that has been made clear by APHIS's work in the
field, there is more need for research on this disease. ARS has
been conducting numerous research projects regarding TSEs,
among them, several important projects regarding Chronic
Wasting Disease. CWD is more challenging than other BSE
research because the disease affects mule deer, white-tailed
deer, and elk with different pathogenic patterns. Diagnostic
testing needs to be tailored for each of these species. Further
control measures for captive farm-raised elk will optimally
include a live animal test, while free-ranging deer would be
tested by a deer-side screening of hunter-killed animals, which
typically number in the tens of thousands over a short period
in the fall.
With this in mind, ARS has several ongoing projects,
including live animal tests for elk, techniques for detection
of CWD agents in soil and water, and the development of a test
that can be used at check stations during hunting seasons. ARS
is also working on the identification of a gene possibly
associated with resistance to CWD in elk. The gene is rare in
the wild population and CWD prevalence in elk is low.
Therefore, an oral challenge trial is being determined--the
susceptibility is underway.
APHIS's National Wildlife Research Center in Fort Collins,
Colorado, has been involved in research on CWD as well. NWRC is
researching ways to identify barriers, repellents, and other
methods to keep deer and cattle separated. This research is
conducted to control bovine tuberculosis, which may have much
of the same information apply to CWD.
CSREES is also addressing CWD through its competitive
research program. In Fiscal Year 2002, the national research
initiative for animal and plant health specifically called for
research on livestock-related wildlife interactions. Research
proposals under this program are currently under peer review
and awards will be made by late summer. In addition, CSREES is
supporting a study through the critical issues program at the
University of Wyoming, which is investigating the
susceptibility of cattle to Chronic Wasting Disease. Finally,
CSREES is administering a special grant program to Colorado
State for the Center of Ecologically Important Infectious
Animal Disease to study a variety of animal diseases, including
CWD.
USDA is committed to fighting this serious health threat.
The President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget reflects its commitment
by including an increase in funding for APHIS, ARS, and CSREES.
The budget requests an increase of $7.2 million for a
nationwide CWD elimination and surveillance activities, which
would be directed primarily toward captive cervids, $8.6
million for TSE research, $386,000 for targeted CWD, and $16.4
million for basic research in the emerging agriculture disease
initiative of the national research initiative.
CWD is a disease that crosses State, county, and local
boundaries and is present in both wild and farm populations.
With this in mind, USDA has already met with our counterpart,
as you have just heard, to coordinate a Federal response. The
Department of Interior has agreed to form a joint CWD working
group with USDA and the first meeting is scheduled for May 23.
The purpose of this working group will be to assist the States
in cooperation in a coordinated manner. ARS, CSREES, and U.S.
Geological Survey are planning to sponsor a meeting in August
to discuss CWD research priorities and to share information.
ARS is also working with several universities, including
Colorado State and the University of Washington, on CWD
projects.
In addition, APHIS continues to work with its counterparts
at the State level. USDA recognizes and respects the
jurisdiction of States and acknowledges States' wildlife
agencies as the lead in CWD. When CWD was found in free-ranging
populations, APHIS has assisted and will continue to assist
affected States by providing laboratory and diagnostic testing,
and supporting and assistance in CWD surveillance activities.
APHIS has also provided support to Wisconsin and Colorado
in harvesting deer and elk for further sampling after new finds
in wildlife. APHIS's epidemiological team has worked with
Wisconsin's State veterinarian to investigate the outbreak
there.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Butler, we are going to have to wrap it up
because I want to give everybody an opportunity.
Mr. Butler. All right. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. That was good.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Butler follows:]
Statement of Dr. Jim Butler, Deputy Under Secretary, Marketing and
Regulatory Programs, U.S. Department of Agriculture
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for this
opportunity to speak with you today about the U.S. Department of
Agriculture's (USDA) efforts to research, monitor, and manage Chronic
Wasting Disease (CWD) in deer and elk. CWD is a transmissible
spongiform encephalopathy (TSE) found only in cervids (members of the
deer family) in North America. First recognized as a clinical
``wasting'' syndrome in 1967 in mule deer in a wildlife research
facility in northern Colorado, it was identified as a TSE in 1978. CWD
is typified by chronic weight loss leading to death. While there is no
known relationship between CWD and any other TSE of animals or people,
the Administration believes that meaningful cooperation and
coordination with industry, states, and other Federal agencies is vital
in further addressing this issue.
There are three agencies within USDA currently involved in the
study of CWD: first, the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
(APHIS), which has the authority to deal with livestock diseases and to
manage wildlife damage; second, the Agricultural Research Service
(ARS), which is currently conducting CWD research; and finally, the
Cooperative State Research, Education, and Extension Service (CSREES),
which provides grants to universities to conduct research in areas such
as CWD.
Surveillance for CWD has also been a cooperative effort involving
State agriculture and wildlife agencies and USDA. Farmed cervid
surveillance has been increasing each year since 1997 and will be an
integral part of the USDA program to eliminate CWD from farmed elk and
the establishment of a certification program for herds free of the
disease. Since 1997, CWD has been diagnosed in 20 farmed elk herds in 6
States: Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, and South
Dakota. In September of 2001, Secretary Veneman signed a declaration of
emergency for CWD, which allowed APHIS to seek Commodity Credit
Corporation (CCC) funds. Since September, APHIS has received a total of
$14.8 million in CCC funds, which has been used for CWD indemnity
payments and testing, disposal, and surveillance costs.
The APHIS indemnity program is voluntary, and producers who choose
not to have an eligible herd depopulated are not required by APHIS to
do so. Under the program, indemnity amounts are determined by
appraisal. At present, USDA is paying up to 95 percent of the fair
market value for depopulated animals up to $3,000 of the appraised
value of each animal. Additionally, in April 2002, USDA agreed to buy
out and depopulate exposed farmed elk herds in the area of Colorado
where free-ranging animals have tested positive for the disease. Elk
owners who agreed to the indemnity are allowed to restock their land
with only non-cervid ruminants like cattle, swine, and sheep. We will
consider requests from other States based on the availability of
funding.
One thing has been made clear by APHIS' work in the field: there is
a need for more research on this disease. ARS has been conducting
numerous research projects regarding transmissible spongiform
encephalopathies (TSE), among them several important projects regarding
CWD. CWD is more challenging than other TSE research because the
disease affects mule deer, white tailed deer, and elk with different
pathogenic patterns. Diagnostic testing needs to be tailored for each
species. Further, control measures for captive, farm-raised elk will
optimally include a live animal test, while free-ranging deer would
best be tested by ``deer side'' screening of hunter-killed animals,
which typically number in the tens or hundreds of thousands over a
period of a few weeks each fall.
With this in mind, ARS has several ongoing projects including a
live animal test for elk, techniques for the detection of the CWD agent
in soil and water, and the development of a test that can be used at
check stations during hunting season. ARS is also working on the
identification of a gene possibly associated with resistance to CWD in
elk. The gene is rare in the wild population and CWD prevalence in elk
is low. Therefore, an oral challenge trial to determine disease
susceptibility is underway.
APHIS' National Wildlife Research Center (NWRC) has also been
involved with research on CWD. NWRC is researching ways to identify
barriers, repellents, and other methods to keep deer and cattle
separated. This research is being conducted to control bovine
tuberculosis, but much of the information will apply to CWD. NWRC is
also planning construction on a wildlife disease building because of
APHIS' increasing involvement in wildlife diseases.
CSREES is addressing CWD through its competitive research programs.
The Fiscal Year 2002 National Research Initiative Animal Health program
specifically called for research on diseases related to livestock-
wildlife interactions. Research proposed under this program is
currently under peer-review and awards will be made by late summer. In
addition CSREES is supporting a study through the Critical Issues
program at the University of Wyoming, which is investigating the
susceptibility of cattle to Chronic Wasting Disease. Finally, CSREES is
administering a Special Research Grant to Colorado State University for
the Center for Economically Important Infectious Animal Diseases to
study a variety of animal diseases, including CWD.
USDA is committed to fighting this serious health threat. The
President's Fiscal Year 2003 budget reflects this commitment by
including increases in funding for APHIS, ARS, and CSREES. The budget
request includes an increase of $7.2 million for nationwide CWD
elimination and surveillance activities, which would be directed
primarily toward captive cervids; $8.6 million for TSE research, of
which $386,900 is specifically targeted for CWD; and an estimated $16.4
million for competitive basic research into the emerging agricultural
disease initiative of the National Research Initiative, which would
include grants to study CWD and other TSE diseases.
CWD is a disease that crosses State, County, and local boundaries
and is present in both farmed and wild populations. Because of this, it
is our view that combating CWD must be a coordinated and cooperative
effort between USDA, the U.S. Departments of Interior and Health and
Human Services, and State departments of agriculture and wildlife.
With that in mind, USDA has already met with its counterparts at
Interior in an effort to coordinate the Federal response. USDA and The
Department of Interior have agreed to form a Joint Federal CWD Working
Group. The purpose of the working group will be to assist the states in
a cooperative and coordinated manner. ARS, CSREES and the U.S.
Geological Survey are planning to sponsor a meeting in August to
discuss CWD research priorities and share information. ARS is also
working with several universities, including Colorado State University
and the University of Washington, on projects related to CWD. USDA is
also talking with the Department of Health and Human Services because
of the Department's jurisdictional responsibilities with deer and elk
products as feed for animals or human food (including dietary
supplements) and cosmetics.
In addition, APHIS continues to work with its counterparts at the
State level. USDA recognizes and respects the jurisdiction of States
and acknowledges the State wildlife agencies as the lead in CWD in
wildlife. When CWD has been found in free-ranging populations, APHIS
has assisted, and will continue to assist, the affected States by
providing laboratory and diagnostic testing support and by assisting
with CWD surveillance activities. APHIS has also provided support to
Wisconsin and Colorado in harvesting deer and elk for further sampling
after new finds in wildlife. An APHIS epidemiological team has worked
with Wisconsin's State Veterinarian to investigate the outbreak there.
A report on the team's work is currently being compiled.
In conjunction with the States and industry groups, APHIS is
developing a nationwide program to eliminate CWD from farmed elk. The
Agency will soon issue proposed regulations for this program, which, if
finalized, would require that all captive cervids be enrolled prior to
interstate movement.
We look forward to continuing our work on CWD with our Federal and
State counterparts and are committed to decreasing the occurrence of
this disease in free-ranging and farmed deer and elk populations. Thank
you again for this opportunity. I will be happy to answer any questions
you may have.
______
Mr. McInnis. Doctor, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF GLEN ZEBARTH, D.V.M., NORTH AMERICAN ELK BREEDERS
ASSOCIATION
Dr. Zebarth. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to thank
the Committee for the opportunity to represent the North
American Elk Breeders Association. My name is Glen Zebarth. I
am a veterinary practitioner from Alexandria, Minnesota.
The North American Elk Breeders Association, NAEBA, has
taken a role in a response to CWD eradication in the farmed elk
industry, which are animals that are raised and propagated
behind fence and is defined as such in the Animal Health
Protection Act of the 2002 Farm Bill. The goal of NAEBA, the
elk industry, from when it was first discovered in farmed elk
in a cow in Saskatchewan in 1996 and subsequently discovered in
a farm situation in South Dakota in 1997, has been eradication.
In opinion, there is nothing controversial about CWD. We do not
want it and neither does anyone else, irregardless of where the
animals are, and our goal has been toward eradication.
Our action to obtain this goal of eradication started with
a symposium called in August 1998 and resulted in a model
surveillance control program that was submitted to the United
States Animal Health Association, Wildlife Diseases Committee,
and the Alternative Agriculture Committee in 1998. That
protocol has been resubmitted and worked on and adjusted each
year since and was a template for the emergency interim rule
which Dr. Butler spoke that was implemented in September of
2001.
That program basically contains the key points of a third-
party verified inventory of all the animals in a herd; a
verified record of animals that come in and leave the herd for
a period of 5 years; a mandatory testing of the brain of every
animal that dies, irregardless of the cause of death, that is
in excess of 16 months of age in elk. It also contains a
certification phase that after a producer has participated in
this program in excess of 5 years, he is certified free.
As Dr. Miller reported, in elk, the incubation period
typically is 16 to 30 months. That would also be supported by
Canadian data from the CFIA that involved the depopulation of
9,000 animals on 42 facilities, and all of those animals, CFIA
reports, have an epidemiological link back and a connection,
not a sporadic occurrence, but an epidemiological link and
connection and fall within that timeframe of incubation period.
In regard to matters of threats to human health or to
livestock, the FDA's BSE Scientific Advisory Committee met on
January 19 of 2001 and the Chairman, Dr. Paul Brown, is quoted
and his conclusion was that, ``To date, there is no identified
instance of disease in human beings attributable to Chronic
Wasting Disease, either through contact or through
consumption.''
The National Institutes of Health Rocky Mountain lab in
Hamilton, Montana, in a published peer review journal in the
year 2000 concluded that a barrier at the molecular level that
should limit the susceptibility of non-cervid species to CWD
exists.
Dr. Beth Williams, who is in the audience today, has been a
leading expert in CWD and first described the syndrome, and she
has been involved in a 10-year study involving 12 cattle that
were orally fed CWD, exposed, and have not become infected in
excess of 4 years of exposure.
Dr. Daniel Gould at Colorado State University did a follow
study in Colorado of 262 adult-aged cows that went to slaughter
from the endemic area in Colorado and those animals were all
tested and found to be completely negative and no evidence of
prion protein in any of those cattle that had lived their
entire age life in the endemic area.
The elk industry would like to thank USDA-APHIS for their
great support in implementing the program and the funding and
would urge continuing funding for USDA-APHIS to help the elk
industry and the farmed cervid industry eliminate and
completely eradicate this disease from our farm populations.
Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Doctor, thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Zebarth follows:]
Statement of Glen Zebarth, DVM, North American Elk Breeders Association
On behalf of the North American Elk Breeders Association (NAEBA),
it is an honor to testify before the Subcommittee on Forests and Forest
Health and the Subcommittee on Fisheries Conservation, Wildlife and
Oceans. NAEBA developed the model CWD Eradication Program, which the
USDA adopted, and has been actively involved in educating and
encouraging its members to fully participate in the Chronic Wasting
Disease program. NAEBA has also been providing science-based
information about CWD to the public and has been actively supporting,
through its affiliations with other elk industry groups, ongoing
scientific research of Chronic Wasting Disease, including research
aimed at developing a live animal test for the detection of CWD and a
genetic challenge study conducted by the Elk Research Council and the
USDA.
As the leading industry representative, NAEBA recommends that state
and Federal agencies adopt an interagency, public-private partnership
to eradicate CWD in both domestic and wild cervids.
No Threat to Humans or Livestock
On January 19, 2001, I was privileged to deliver testimony before
the FDA TSE advisory committee, which is comprised of the leading
scientific researchers in the government and private sector. Some of
the individuals preset at this testimony were also present at those
hearings, including Dr. Mike Miller. After reports and discussion on
CWD, Committee Chairman Dr. Paul Brown concluded: ``To date, there's no
identified instance of disease in human beings attributable to Chronic
Wasting Disease, either through contact (with sick animals) or through
consumption''.
While NAEBA supports additional scientific studies on the actual
cause of CWD and to develop a live animal test, it is important to take
a moment to summarize some of the key research on CWD to date. Several
studies have been conducted to determine the transmissibility of CWD
from infected cervids to other species. In one study, conducted at the
NIH's Rocky Mountain Laboratories in Hamilton, Montana, researchers
determined that there existed ``a barrier at the molecular level that
should limit the susceptibility of--non-cervid species to CWD''
(Raymond, C.J. et al. ``Evidence of a molecular barrier limiting
susceptibility of humans, cattle, and sheep to chronic wasting
disease.'' The EMBO Journal. 19.17 (2000):425-4430.
Real-life conditions support the presence of a species barrier.
Beth Williams, DVM, Ph.D., of the Wyoming State Veterinary Laboratory
and leading expert on CWD, said that researchers have found no evidence
that CWD can be transmitted from deer and elk to cattle under natural
conditions and provided an interim report on two studies supporting
these findings. In a 10-year study involving 12 cattle that were orally
fed CWD-infected deer brain one time in 1997, all of the cattle are
healthy. In a contact study also begun in 1997, 24 cattle are being
kept alongside CWD-infected deer, and all 24 are healthy.
In addition, a wide-ranging survey of cattle in contact with CWD-
exposed free-ranging deer supported the species barrier. In 1998, Dr.
Daniel H. Gould of Colorado State University conducted a geographically
targeted survey of adult-age cattle (five years or older) on 22 ranches
where cattle co-mingled with free-roaming deer. None of the 262 cattle
brains analyzed had any indications of Chronic Wasting Disease, and no
evidence of prion proteins was detected in any animal tissue.
In contrast, in a study where 12 cattle were injected
intracranially with CWD-infected deer brain, three cattle became sick
and were euthanized (Hamir, A.N., et al. ``Preliminary Findings on the
Experimental Transmission of Chronic Wasting Disease Agent of Mule Deer
to Cattle.'' Vet. Diagn. Invest.13 (2001). This type of transmission,
however, would never happen under natural ranching conditions or in the
wild.
Proactive Measures to Eliminate CWD
While we believe that CWD poses no threat to humans or cattle, it
does present a very real threat to our livestock, defined in the new
farm bill as ``any farm raised animal'', which includes domestic deer
and elk. CWD is not only a threat to our domestic elk and deer; it also
endangers wild cervids. As an industry, we take the presence of CWD
very seriously and we are committed to eliminating the disease from all
cervids, both domestic and wild.
Additionally, NAEBA is concerned with the public perception of CWD
as a threat to human health. We have undertaken educational initiatives
to allay consumer concerns about the transmissibility of CWD; however,
more education and research needs to be conducted to ensure that the
public has all the pertinent information about CWD, its origins,
symptoms, and modes of transmission.
The North American Elk Breeders Association has taken the leading
role in eradicating CWD from domestic elk. The goal of our program has
been and continues to be the complete eradication of CWD in farmed elk.
It is not just the containment of the disease. When the disease was
first identified in farmed elk in Canada in 1996 and then in the United
States in December of 1997, the control and eradication of the disease
became a top priority.
In fact, when CWD was first discovered in 1997 at a farmed facility
in South Dakota, the elk breeders of that state unanimously voted to
support emergency legislation to address CWD aggressively. Ranchers of
infected herds in South Dakota, out of respect of consumers' concerns,
did not sell antler from CWD present herds and instead, voluntarily
eradicated their herds. In January 1998, all elk farms were placed
under mandatory surveillance and every farmed elk that died aged 16
months or older regardless of cause was tested for CWD. Since 1998, elk
farms in South Dakota have been CWD free indicating that a CWD
eradication program can successfully work to eliminate the disease in
farmed elk. North Dakota, which was also placed under a similar program
in 1998, has never had a single case of CWD.
Today, all but one elk ranch in Craig, Colorado that has had a case
of CWD has been depopulated.
Both the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and the
Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA) have adopted aggressive programs
for the control and eradication of CWD, based on the model program that
was drafted by NAEBA in 1998. Protocols include:
1. LVerified inventory records on herds and animals. Regulations
include tattoo records, microchip implants, and sale and transfer
records.
2. LRequired examination of the brains of all animals that die at
over 16 months of age, regardless of their cause of death.
3. LCertification of herds with CWD-negative status.
4. LDepopulation of herds with one case of CWD. This is a standard
disease eradication program necessitated by the absence of a reliable
ante-mortem CWD test.
5. LPayment of indemnity (of fair market value up to $3000 per
animal) for all animals that are killed because of potential exposure
to CWD.
In addition, Federal law prohibits feeding domestic elk with animal
remains. This ensures that animal by-products are not passed through
the food chain and eliminates feeding as a potential vector for CWD
transmission.
One of the most important components of the CWD control program is
the payment of indemnity to ranchers who are forced to depopulate their
elk herds because of potential exposure to CWD. Indemnity payments have
been part of the traditional role of government agencies in
agricultural endeavors.
NAEBA supports the USDA's Uniformed Method and Rules, which
requires herds to participate in the CWD program before they are
permitted to ship elk interstate. Intrastate movement is a state
right's issue. NAEBA encourages all ranchers to participate in the CWD
program and also suggests that intrastate movement of elk be restricted
to those ranchers who are participating in the program.
CWD in Colorado
CWD was first diagnosed as a clinical syndrome in captive elk in a
Colorado Division of Wildlife research facility in Fort Collins in
1967. Since that time, the disease has been determined to be endemic in
northeastern Colorado and southeastern Wyoming. In fact, the disease
prevalence is as high as 14% of the mule deer population in specific
game management areas (http://wildlife.state.co.us/hunt/
HunterEducation/chronic.asp).
Let me be very clear about definitions. Captive elk or deer are
cervids that were captured from the wild and placed behind fences as in
the Colorado DOW research herd. Farmed or domestic elk are elk raised
on farms, some of which came from more than 10 generations of domestic
herds. Farmed elk, by definition established by the recently signed
Farm Bill, is considered livestock. This is an important distinction.
In late September 2001, the appearance of CWD in Colorado elk
ranches was the first real test of the national CWD program. Under the
guidelines of the national CWD Eradication and Control program, Federal
and state agencies, as well as affected elk ranchers, worked quickly to
identify, depopulate, and test all exposed elk.
The program worked successfully in quickly identifying,
depopulating, and testing all exposed elk. A total of 1,732 elk in
Colorado were depopulated and tested, and only 44 of these animals
tested positive for CWD. Of the 44 positive test results, all but two
either appeared at or could be traced back to the source herd. The
other two positive cases were discovered on a ranch in Longmont.
More than 200 animals were shipped to 15 states from affected
Colorado elk ranches. These animals were also quickly identified,
depopulated, and tested for CWD. Only one of 200 elk tested positive
for the disease. The lone positive case was in a Kansas herd of 16 elk:
the remaining elk in the herd were tested and determined negative.
CWD in Nebraska
Unfortunately, CWD also recently appeared in Nebraska. On an elk
and deer farm in northwestern Nebraska, state officials found the
disease present in both deer and elk. The deer herd, which had been a
wild herd that was fenced-in 1991, had an infection rate of 50%, while
the elk herd had an infection rate of 10%. All the exposed animals were
depopulated and tested for CWD in accordance with the USDA regulations.
Additionally, wild deer culled from the land surrounding the ranch
tested positive for CWD. Wyoming management unit 16 is less than 30
miles from the affected ranch in Nebraska, and results from a study
conducted in 2000 show the unit has a disease prevalence of 4.1% in
free-ranging mule deer and 15.4% in free-ranging whitetail deer
(Miller, M. W. et al, ``Epizootiology of chronic wasting disease in
free-ranging cervids in Colorado and Wyoming'' Journal of Wildlife
Diseases., Oct. 2000, 36:4, 676-690.).
CWD in Wisconsin
The occurrence of CWD in Wisconsin is significant because it marks
the first time that the disease has appeared east of the Mississippi
River.
While CWD has been detected in wild deer in Wisconsin, there has
never been a case of the disease in domestic elk or deer in the state.
Contrary to reports, there has never been a single documented case
where CWD was transferred from an elk or deer ranch into the wild.
Because of the appearance of CWD, the Wisconsin Commercial Deer and
Elk Farmers Association (WCDEFA) has agreed to a temporary moratorium
of the shipment of deer and elk. WCDEFA also supports a mandatory CWD
surveillance program, with phased-in importation requirements (as
outlined earlier in this testimony) that would allow the transport of
deer and elk only if they come from herds that have been CWD-free for
five years. WCDEFA is cooperating with state agencies to help educate
the public and alleviate concerns about CWD impacting human health.
NAEBA believes that the phased-in importation requirement plan,
along with the CWD Eradication Program, is working to protect domestic
as well as free-ranging cervids form CWD and to eliminate the disease.
A permanent ban on the movement of cervids will only exacerbate fears,
adversely impact hunting economies of affected states, and further
erode markets for elk and deer products.
Public hysteria, fueled by sensationalist comments in print media
by critics of the elk industry, if continued to be left unchecked, can
do more harm to the hunting economies of affected states than the
disease itself.
Establishing an Inter-agency Approach to CWD Eradication
We are glad to see that wildlife managers from states where CWD is
present in wild populations are expressing their concerns about the
disease; it is imperative that we work together to eradicate the
disease entirely.
NAEBA is submitting recommendations that we feel will build an
inter-agency public-private approach to CWD eradication.
1. LBuild regional coalitions to battle CWD. Individual states/
provinces cannot effectively fight CWD alone, due to financial concerns
and high disease prevalence in isolated geographic areas. NAEBA urges
state and national wildlife managers and agricultural regulators to
form cooperative agreements on a regional basis to research and
disseminate important CWD information, and to search out and eliminate
infected animals.
2. LEstablish a CWD Task Force. Any resolution of the CWD infection
must involve all affected parties, including wildlife managers and
agricultural regulators, as well as representatives of the domestic
cervid industry, conservation and hunting groups, and other concerned
stakeholders. State, provincial, or national governments should fully
fund these task forces and charge them with developing a 10-year
strategic plan for eliminating CWD from all cervids.
3. LInitiate cooperation with Federal and national agencies. States
and provinces should work with various Federal and national agencies,
including USDA, US Department of the Interior, US Forest Service, CFIA,
and National Parks Services to initiate more proactive CWD detection
and eradication programs.
4. LMove more decisively when CWD appears in wild cervid
populations. States and provinces should aggressively control CWD in
wild cervid populations by culling animals from known endemic areas,
including Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, and Wisconsin. Additionally,
states and provinces should make every possible effort to completely
eliminate potentially exposed wild cervid populations in areas where
contact is most likely between potentially infected cervids and humans,
livestock, and agricultural production.
5. LPursue a live CWD test. States, provinces, and the domestic
cervid industry should empanel the leading experts on CWD and fund
extensive research and development to create a live CWD disease test
that will focus on all disease pathogens or by-products, including
prions.
6. LDouble-fence domestic herds in endemic areas. Using state,
provincial and national funds, as well as donated industry and
conservation forces, states and provinces should use double fencing on
domestic cervid facilities to protect herds from infection in known
endemic areas.
7. LRestrict movement of hunted cervid carcasses from endemic areas
to those tested negative for CWD. The movement of carcasses that have
not been tested for CWD from endemic areas poses a threat to free-
ranging and domestic cervids in other areas.
Recently, the USDA submitted a request $7.2 million as part of the
President's budget to help combat CWD. NAEBA fully supports this
request and is asking that additional funds be appropriated for testing
of free-ranging cervids for CWD.
The North American Elk Breeders Foundation (referred to hereafter
as ``the Foundation''), a 501(c) 3 tax-exempt, non-profit educational
organization, is requesting Federal funding in the amount of $600,000
to engage in a proactive, nationwide science-based educational
campaign. The Foundation's educational campaign is designed to
encourage elk ranchers to participate in the CWD program, to provide
science-based information to the public, and to ensure that their
concerns regarding CWD are addressed.
The Foundation is best positioned to educate elk ranchers and to
continue its educational efforts to the public. Yet, due to the
increasing attention on and prevalence of CWD, our limited resources
are not sufficient to address these legitimate public concerns. We are
asking Congress to assist us in this important effort to continually
educate and inform the public about CWD.
While all research has focused on prions as the causative agent of
CWD, prions might be the result and not the cause. Knowing the exact
cause of the disease will only accelerate the development of a live-
animal test as well as the formulation of a vaccine or other treatment.
CWD may be caused by a virus, bacteria or bacteriaphage (a viral
infected bacteria). It is important to know the cause of CWD in order
to effectively pursue a cure.
In addition, it is critical to pursue a live animal test, further
test decontamination methods, and to continue research on genetic
resistance. NAEBA, the North American Elk Breeders Foundation and the
Elk Research Council vigorously support the competitive proposal
process for research funds and looks forward to participating in and
supporting further research.
NAEBA Comments on USDA Interim Rule
The USDA specifically requested feedback on herd reintroduction
after depopulation and decontamination methods. NAEBA submitted a
response summarized below.
There are a number of factors to consider when determining when elk
can be reintroduced and the risk of CWD re-infection minimized. These
factors include:
1. LThe level of infectivity on the ranch.
2. LThe stage each of elk detected with CWD.
3. LWhether CWD was transmitted to other elk on the premises or
whether the CWD positive elk is a trace-forward animal (i.e. an elk
shipped from an exposed herd).
4. LIf the CWD positive elk is a trace forward elk, how long was
the elk on the trace forward herd.
5. LResearch on ranches where positive animals were depopulated and
whose owners have reintroduced elk.
6. LAny environmental factors unique to the ranch.
We believe that the herd plan, developed by the state veterinarian,
a member of APHIS along with the rancher, should properly address the
specific issue of elk reintroduction.
In addition, NAEBA sees decontamination as a major area for further
research. The Elk Research Council is involved in a decontamination
study that has been ongoing for the past 18 months. NAEBA recommends
decontamination procedures for ranches that have been exposed to CWD-
positive animals. This will help remove the infectious agent from the
premises and will allow breeders to utilize their property again.
Decontamination procedures should include burning or deep burial of
contaminated materials, removal of soil (up to four inches deep) and
replacement with an impervious material such as stone dust, removal of
all organic material, and disinfectant of equipment with a substance
such as sodium hypochlorite or sodium hydroxide.
Value of Elk Ranching
Game farming has a rich history, dating back to Persian, Greek, and
Roman societies. Elk ranching in particular is a value-added
agricultural industry with annual sales of more than $50 million. It is
a viable alternative for family ranching, and many ranchers have made
significant financial investments in their operations. Elk ranching
produces healthy, safe, beneficial products such as lean red meat and
velvet antler dietary supplements for joint mobility and endurance.
Tapping into the recreational aspect of elk ranching by allowing
hunting on appropriate private facilities has not only been successful,
but as predicted has enhanced rural economies and added another
profitable agricultural opportunity to the state. Elk ranching is one
of the last bastions of family farming in this country, and our
industry is willing to do whatever is necessary to protect our animals
from CWD.
Those of us involved in elk ranching believe that by working
together, trade organizations and state and Federal agencies can
eradicate CWD from all cervids, both domestic and wild. By eliminating
the disease, consumers can continue to enjoy the health benefits of elk
products such as lean red meat and velvet antler, and ranchers
throughout North America can continue to thrive in partnership with
nature for many years to come.
______
[The response to questions submitted for the record by Mr.
Zebarth follows:]
Response to Questions submitted by Glen L. Zebarth, DVM
Your testimony advocates ``phasing-in'' new requirements for animal
imports and monitoring B as opposed to immediate action. Given
that no one wants the disease to spread, why don't you advocate
immediate implementation?
I do advocate immediate action in eradicating CWD in all cervids.
The North American Elk Breeder's Association initiated a model CWD
surveillance control program in October 1998. We would at this time
advocate a 100% mandatory monitoring program for all cervids, free-
ranging and farmed. I would advocate an interstate movement requirement
of 36 months CWD surveillance with that level ratcheting up to 60
months. The increase from 36 months to 60 months is the area to which I
must have been referring in regard to the quote ``phasing in''. The
accepted incubation period of CWD in elk is 15 to 35 months, so that an
immediate requirement of 36 months surveillance exceeds the incubation
period. The additional time span of going to 60 months is added
insurance.
I would strongly encourage the Federal Government to support state
veterinarians and their animal health departments to obtain adequate
funding to implement these measures.
I would also advocate the same interstate movement requirements for
whole carcasses. Especially those moving from know endemic areas. As a
proven method of transmission is oral ingestion of infected CNS tissue.
I appreciate the opportunity to respond, if I can be of any further
assistance please contact me.
______
Mr. McInnis. The next doctor, Dr. Wolfe. You may proceed.
STATEMENT OF GARY J. WOLFE, PH.D., CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE
PROJECT LEADER, ROCKY MOUNTAIN ELK FOUNDATION, BOONE AND
CROCKETT CLUB, MULE DEER FOUNDATION
Mr. Wolfe. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and other members
of the Committee. My name is Gary Wolfe and I represent an
alliance of three sportsmen's-based wildlife conservation
organizations. These are the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, the
Mule Deer Foundation, and the Boone and Crockett Club. We
really appreciate this opportunity to speak with you today
about this very serious wildlife disease and we thank you for
giving it the Congressional attention it deserves.
Mr. Chairman, if you will accept my written testimony for
the record, I will just briefly summarize it here for the
Committee this afternoon.
The Elk Foundation, the Boone and Crockett Club, and the
Mule Deer Foundation are deeply concerned about the impact that
Chronic Wasting Disease is having in certain localized areas,
as we heard this morning, and we are also very concerned about
its potential to spread throughout North America, possibly with
devastating consequences to our wild deer and elk herds. So
these three organizations have tried to do something about it.
They have agreed to pool their resources, to share information,
and collaborate on strategies and methods to positively assist
with this Chronic Wasting Disease crisis.
Other sportsmen's-based conservation organizations have
recently learned of this alliance. They have expressed an
interest in joining us, and I believe we are going to have some
more groups coming on board. We recognize we have no authority
for wildlife management. We do not want any authority for
wildlife management, but we want to be a good partner and be in
a supportive role for our agency partners there.
So I would like to share with you for a moment some of the
projects this coalition is going to be undertaking. We believe
that one of the greatest needs is the timely and accurate
dissemination of information to the public regarding Chronic
Wasting Disease. That came up several times this morning. I
think Russell George did an eloquent job of emphasizing the
importance of that.
So to help accomplish that objective, we have several
things in line. First and foremost, we are going to be
cosponsoring, along with several agency partners, a National
Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium that is scheduled in August
of this year, and the intent is to bring together the very best
minds that are working on Chronic Wasting Disease and the
leading wildlife managers that are involved in this and
summarize not only the state of the knowledge, but really to
come up with very specific recommendations as to what can be
done to manage the disease.
We also plan to participate in a number of regional forums
around the country. For example, this past weekend, I was in
Boise, disease, for a Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium that
was sponsored, in part, by the Andrews Center for Public
Policy, and that conference was attended by representatives
from State and Federal agencies, sportsmen's organizations,
game ranchers, and other concerned citizens, and I believe that
really helped promote the knowledge and communication amongst
the parties concerning the issue.
One project I am really excited about and I think is going
to make a difference in this communication is a comprehensive
website that our partners are developing. This is going to be a
comprehensive Chronic Wasting Disease website to facilitate the
public's access to timely and accurate information on the
issue. Unfortunately, issues tend to get blown out of
proportion at times. They can either be underplayed or
overplayed. We want to assist the public with getting the facts
and separate fact from myth in this regard. We are going to be
providing links to other sites. Several of the State agencies
have excellent sites already up. So we are going to link to
some other good sources there.
Additionally, we are working with State and Federal
agencies to develop policy recommendations, and as you see
today, we intend to provide testimony and recommendations to
key decisionmakers, such as State wildlife commissions, State
legislatures, and the U.S. Congress.
In regards to specific recommendations concerning ways in
which the Federal agencies and Congress can support the States'
efforts, we would like to offer several suggestions. In
actuality, this is just to reiterate a number of good
suggestions that were brought forward this morning.
First and foremost, successful control and ultimate
eradication of Chronic Wasting Disease is certainly going to
depend upon a cooperative and well-coordinated effort between
the various Federal agencies and the State agencies. We
encourage you to rely heavily upon the recommendations from
State wildlife agencies as it relates to managing wild
populations.
I was heartened to hear your opening comments this morning,
Mr. Chairman. I think that is right on track. We are certainly
going to encourage you to either have somebody at this Chronic
Wasting Disease Symposium, but maybe more importantly, request
a report back to this Committee from the sponsors of the
Chronic Wasting Disease Symposium with some very specific
recommendations.
And fourth and last, because efforts to control Chronic
Wasting Disease are costly and redirecting resources away from
other State agencies' wildlife departments, we reiterate the
need for some significant Federal funding being appropriated
for several activities, briefly, to assist the State wildlife
management agencies to conduct Chronic Wasting Disease
surveillance with the wild populations, to assist them with
their efforts to eradicate in it areas where it does exist in
the wild, and also to help fund the much needed increased
capacities of our State veterinary diagnostic laboratories.
I see I am out of time. In conclusion, I would just like to
say, please recognize that there are hundreds of thousands of
sportsmen's conservationists in America that are concerned
about this issue. We are willing to help and we are looking
forward to working with Congress and our agency partners on
resolving this issue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Dr. Wolfe. I would point out that
your testimony is very refreshing. There are private
organizations out there that want to assist us and I think it
is excellent. I think it is a great idea. Your four steps are
very well taken.
I would ask, if you do not mind, we would like to have
members of our staff probably, possibly members of the
Committee, involved in the symposium, as well, and that extends
to all our guests who are having meetings or things in regards
to this. Our staff is devoting a lot of time to this issue.
So this kind of communication between our organizations is
important, and I am impressed with the commitment of resources
which your organizations have made to assist us with this. As
you said in your comments, we are all in this together. So, Dr.
Wolfe, thank you very much for your testimony.
Mr. Wolfe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and we will certainly
keep your staff informed and involved in what is going on.
Mr. McInnis. That will be very, very helpful.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wolfe follows:]
Statement of, Gary J. Wolfe, Ph.D., Chronic Wasting Disease Project
Leader, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation
Good morning Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the
Subcommittees. My name is Gary Wolfe, and I represent a coalition of
three sportsmen's-based, nonprofit wildlife conservation
organizations'the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett
Club, and Mule Deer Foundation. I, and the organizations I represent,
sincerely appreciate the opportunity to share our concerns regarding
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) with you today. Thank you for giving this
serious wildlife disease the Congressional attention it deserves.
The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, Boone and Crockett Club, and
Mule Deer Foundation are deeply concerned about the impact CWD is
having, and may continue to have, on North America's wild deer and elk
populations. We are concerned about the possible, but currently
unknown, threats to other wild cervids, domestic livestock and humans.
And, we are also concerned about the impact this disease may have upon
millions of Americans' opportunity to hunt deer and elk each fall, and
upon their confidence to put healthful wild venison on their families'
tables.
In response to these concerns, these three conservation
organizations have recently formed an alliance to address CWD. The
organizations have agreed to pool resources, share information, and
collaborate on strategies and methods to positively impact the CWD
issue. Upon hearing of this partnership, other wildlife conservation
organizations have expressed an interest in joining our CWD Alliance.
We believe that one of the greatest needs is the dissemination of
timely and accurate information regarding CWD to our members, the
general public, media and decision makers. It is important to separate
fact from myth. Concerns about the seriousness of this disease should
not be downplayed; but at the same time, unwarranted fears leading to
hysteria and overreaction need to be quelled. To that end, the CWD
Alliance is:
LCo-sponsoring, along with the National Wildlife
Federation and several state wildlife agencies, a national CWD
Symposium, scheduled for August 6 & 7, 2002 in Denver, CO. This
conference will provide a common forum for concerned groups and
regulatory agencies to discuss issues concerning CWD. The intent is to
summarize the current information about the disease and present the
status of management programs conducted by various agencies and
organizations in an effort to control this disease. Most importantly,
information and discussions presented at this conference will help
shape recommendations for future management actions.
LDeveloping a comprehensive CWD website (www.cwd-info.org)
to facilitate the public's access to breaking CWD news, scientific
literature, ongoing research studies, recommendations from professional
wildlife management agencies, links to other CWD information sources,
and perhaps most importantly an easy to comprehend CWD overview
including ``Frequently asked Questions''.
LCooperating on the publication of timely and informative
CWD articles in our respective organizations' member magazines.
Other activities of the CWD Alliance include:
LConsideration of grant requests for specific CWD research
and management projects
L1Working with state and Federal agencies to develop
policy recommendations for the management and eradication of CWD
LProviding expert testimony to select decision makers such
as state wildlife commissions, state legislatures, and the United
States Congress.
We would like to offer the following recommendations regarding ways
Federal agencies and Congress can support state wildlife management
agencies and other involved state agencies in the control of Chronic
Wasting Disease:
LFirst and foremost, successful control and eradication of
CWD in both wild and captive populations of deer and elk will depend
upon a cooperative approach and a well-coordinated effort between
Federal and state agencies. We encourage you to rely heavily on the
recommendations of the state wildlife agencies when considering Federal
regulations or congressional legislation regarding CWD. Any such
actions should recognize and reinforce the principle that state
wildlife agencies have the primary responsibility for managing wild
cervid populations.
LSecondly, since CWD may be spread to new areas through
commercial trade in captive cervids, thus placing wild populations of
deer and elk at risk, the United States Department of Agriculture's
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) should work closely
with state wildlife agencies in the development of regulations
affecting the interstate shipment of captive cervids.
LThird, request that the sponsors of the upcoming national
CWD Symposium report back to these congressional subcommittees
following the conference with specific recommendations for action.
LFourth, because efforts to control CWD are costly and are
taking critical limited resources away from the impacted states' other
wildlife management programs, we would like to see significant Federal
funding appropriated to:
* LSupport additional research into the diagnosis, pathogenesis,
and epidemiology of CWD.
* LAssist state wildlife agencies with the costs associated with
the surveillance and testing of wild deer and elk populations for the
presence of CWD.
* LAssist state wildlife agencies with the costs associated with
efforts to eradicate CWD from areas where it already occurs, and
programs to prevent its spread to new areas.
* LAssist state veterinary diagnostic laboratories with the costs
associated with becoming properly staffed and equipped so they can
quickly and effectively process the significantly increased number of
samples being submitted for CWD testing.
* LDevelop and implement, in coordination with state wildlife
agencies, a national CWD public awareness campaign.
In conclusion, America's wild deer and elk populations are
priceless treasures. They are a source of beauty, inspiration and
recreation for millions of Americans; and, they infuse billions of
dollars annually into our national economy. Their health and vitality
must be protected! Please remember, there are literally hundreds of
thousands of American sportsmen-conservationists that are concerned
about this issue and willing to help in its resolution.
Once again, thank you for the opportunity to share our concerns and
recommendations on this very important wildlife disease issue.
______
[The response to questions submitted for the record by Mr.
Wolfe follows:]
SUPPLEMENTAL QUESTIONS FROM MAY 16 OVERSIGHT HEARING ON CHRONIC WASTING
DISEASE
for
gary j. wolfe
Answers to these questions constitute my own professional and
personal opinions, and may not necessarily reflect the views of the
organizations I represented at the May 16, 2000 hearing.
Questions from the Majority:
1. What do you consider to be the appropriate role for the Federal and
state governments to play in managing CWD in free-ranging
wildlife?
I believe the Federal Government should fund research, serve as an
information clearinghouse, facilitate national coordination, and assist
the state agencies as a supportive partner. However, Federal assistance
must not compromise the responsibility and authority of state wildlife
management agencies for free-ranging wildlife.
State wildlife departments should be the agencies primarily
responsible for CWD management and control efforts in free-ranging
wildlife within their boundaries.
2. What are some of the differences in managing this disease in game
(farm) animals compared to free ranging animals? Will applying
the theories and practices behind management of CWD in game
(farm) animals be effective and/or efficient in managing CWD in
free ranging animals? Please explain.
A primary difference is the controlled environment of a game farm.
Game farm animals are usually tame; easy to approach and handle; and
their food, water and medications can be closely regulated. It is much
easier to monitor game farm animals for the presence of disease, and
much more practical to remove all sick animals from the population.
Ingress and egress of game farm animals can also be controlled, whereas
that is impossible in a free-ranging situation.
Managing disease in the wild is a much more challenging situation
than in the controlled environment and restricted area of game farms.
Once established in a wild population, diseases are extremely
difficult, and sometimes impossible, to eradicate. Wild animals are
dispersed over large areas of rugged terrain where it is virtually
impossible to observe all animals, much less capture all of them for
disease testing or treatment. Managing CWD in free-ranging deer and elk
is extremely difficult because of the long incubation period,
uncertainty about the mechanism of transmission, and the potential for
persistence of the causative agent in the environment.
3. Should the Federal Government support the management of wildlife for
the sake of wildlife rather than as a potential source for
infection of game (farm) herds? Why?
Wildlife management policy should be focused on ensuring the health
and sustainability of wild, free-ranging wildlife--not on the
protection of privately owned game herds.
The American system of public wildlife 'ownership' is unique in the
world and a treasure enjoyed by millions of Americans. This public
wildlife resource generates billions of dollars annually for our
nation's economy. In contrast, the benefits of game farms accrue to
only a very few, and their overall contribution to the nation's economy
is minuscule compared to public wildlife.
4. Mr. McInnis has introduced a bill to define the Federal role in
managing CWD in deer and elk, and to define the authorities of
the Federal agencies. An important element assures that Federal
wildlife agencies partner with state wildlife agencies and that
Federal agriculture agencies partner with state agriculture
agencies. Could you comment on this bill?
Representative McInnis' bill (H.R. 4795) is a giant step in the
right direction. It provides much-needed funding for additional Federal
CWD research, provides for a national CWD Clearinghouse based in the
USGS, upgrades veterinary diagnostic labs, supports state efforts to
manage CWD via pass-through funding to state wildlife agencies, and
reinforces the premise that the state's have primary authority for
managing the public wildlife resource within their boundaries.
Movement of live animals (both captive and wild) is one of the
greatest risk factors for the spread of CWD into new areas. This risk
factor is exacerbated by human-aided transportation of live deer and
elk. H.R. 4795 could provide additional protection for wild, free-
ranging deer and elk if it included a moratorium on the interstate
shipment of live cervids until more is known about the epidemiology of
CWD.
Question from the Minority:
1. I understand there is field evidence of genetic resistance to CWD in
some elk and mule deer. Are not eradication efforts
counterproductive in that they kill healthy animals that can
bring us out of this epidemic?
I am not aware of any scientific evidence that supports the theory
that some mule deer and elk are genetically resistant to CWD. Nor am I
aware of any scientific evidence that some deer and elk develop an
acquired immunity to CWD.
______
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Pacelle, you may proceed.
STATEMENT OF WAYNE PACELLE, SENIOR VICE PRESIDENT FOR
COMMUNICATIONS AND GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS, THE HUMANE SOCIETY OF
THE UNITED STATES
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Representative Kind.
I am Wayne Pacelle. I am Senior Vice President for
Communications and Government Affairs for the Humane Society of
the United States, the nation's largest animal protection
organization, with seven million members and constituents in
the U.S. I will try not to repeat comments that have been made
prior about this issue and maybe draw out a couple of points.
First, I do want to say that there is no dispute that all
interested parties, whether they are hunters, livestock
interests, wildlife managers, animal advocates, support the
rapid development of a live animal test as a means of more
precisely gauging the scope of the problem and addressing the
disease in individual animals. I think we are all in agreement
and I hope that we can all proceed with that element of this
campaign against CWD.
Second, and I want to spend a little time on this, is that
before the test is developed, there is going to be great
pressure to engage in mass slaughter of animals in areas where
the disease has been identified. We want to urge policymakers
to resist the temptation to support this draconian response.
While mass slaughter may appear to demonstrate a swift and
decisive political response to an obviously grave circumstance,
it is not at all clear that mass slaughter would result in
eradication of the disease.
In captive facilities, current management options are
limited to quarantine or killing of CWD-affected herds. In the
1990's, two attempts to eradicate CWD from cervid research
facilities failed. The causes of these failures were not
determined, but environmental contamination remaining after the
herd was killed was likely in both cases. Whether or not
contaminated environments can be completely disinfected remains
somewhat questionable, at least in the short run.
But at least in those captive settings, there is an
argument for the depopulation arguments. I think it is a much
more difficult task in free-ranging animal populations.
Management programs established to date focus on containing CWD
and reducing its prevalence in localized areas. Translocating
cervids and maintaining feeding stations have been banned in
some States in an attempt to limit range expansion and decrease
transmission. The slaughter of cervid populations in an area of
high CWD prevalence has been attempted in Colorado as a
management experiment, but the effectiveness of this approach
has really not been determined.
It is logical to think that lowered animal density should
reduce both disease transmission and likelihood of emigration
of affected animals to adjacent areas with no previous
incidence of CWD. However, there are a bunch of complicating
factors that I think we need to consider.
One, of course, is the environmental persistence of this
prion. We do not know its longevity, so if you depopulate an
area, if animals then move back into the area, you have a
problem. We know from deer and our experiences across the
country with deer, and to a lesser degree elk, that these are
extremely reproductively capable animals. They are highly
adaptable and they will recolonize a vacant area after a
localized eradication has occurred.
I also think it is a dangerous slippery slope. We are
talking about in Wisconsin killing 15,000 deer in this area
where few animals have been identified. What happens if we have
infected animals in northern Wisconsin, in northwest Wisconsin?
Are we going to kill 15,000 or 25,000 in that area because we
have identified a few animals? What happens if it is in
central, north central Wisconsin? Are we going to kill another
20,000 or 30,000 deer in that case? This is a very dangerous
slippery slope, to think that we can apply almost an
agricultural mentality here.
Agricultural producers and the agencies that regulate them
have a zero tolerance policy for certain diseases, like
brucellosis, and we can understand that. But those are captive
populations where you have vaccines, where you have diagnostic
methods to assess these populations. We have a whole different
situation here and the idea of controlling free-ranging
populations, or controlling the disease in free-ranging
populations through eradication is quite dangerous.
I do want to refer all of you to the testimony of Dr.
Charles Southwick of the University of Colorado. He believes
that CWD may have been around for generations and he has really
questioned from a population ecologist's viewpoint the idea of
these eradication efforts.
But I want to focus some time in the short time that I have
remaining, Mr. Chairman and Representative Kind, on the idea of
prevention. We obviously have heard before that captive cervids
have this disease in a number of States, Colorado, Kansas,
Montana, Nebraska, Oklahoma, Saskatchewan, and South Dakota. It
is documented that spillover of CWD into local free-ranging
cervid populations has probably occurred in at least two
occasions.
By transporting cervids from an endemic area, we are
facilitating the spread of this disease. Several States,
Colorado, Connecticut, Indiana, Nebraska, New York, Texas,
Virginia, and Wisconsin, have adopted moratoria on the import
of some or all cervids, and I think this is really one of the
messages that I want to convey in the most forceful sense. No
one has suggested it here today.
We need a ban on interstate shipment of captive cervids, of
deer and elk. If Wisconsin had adopted this policy years ago as
a State, it would not be dealing with the enormous expenses and
the enormous problems, the threat to the hunting industry, the
threat to the deer. We really need to look at this. This is an
appropriate area for the Federal Government. It does not usurp
States' rights. The Federal Government under the Commerce
Clause can deal with the issue of interstate movement of
animals, and this subject has really been omitted from the
discussion today and I hope you will give it serious
consideration.
I do want to take a moment to note that there are--
Mr. McInnis. You need to wrap it up.
Mr. Pacelle. There are bills that have been introduced by
Sam Farr and Joe Biden to ban the interstate transport of
exotic mammals for the purpose of being shot in so-called
canned hunts. We really question the idea of game ranching of
wild animals, making them agricultural animals, and they have
been a primary agent in dispersing this dangerous prion across
the country. Thank you very much.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Pacelle.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Pacelle follows:]
Statement of Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice President for Communications
and Government Affairs, The Humane Society of the United States
Introduction
On behalf of The Humane Society of the United States, the nation's
largest animal protection organization with more than seven million
members and constituents, I am pleased to offer testimony before the
Subcommittees on Forests and Forest Health and Fisheries Conservation,
Wildlife and Oceans. We appreciate the invitation to participate and we
applaud the committee for conducting this hearing, and hope that you
will take decisive yet careful action, in cooperation with the states,
to combat the severe dangers posed to animals by Chronic Wasting
Disease (CWD).
There is no dispute that all interested parties--the game farm
industry, hunting groups, wildlife managers, livestock interests, and
animal advocates--support the rapid development of a live animal test,
as a means of more precisely gauging the scope of the problem and
addressing the disease in individual animals. Before that test is
developed, however, there will continue to be great pressure to engage
in mass slaughter of animals in areas where the disease has been
identified. We urge the committee to resist the temptation to support
this draconian response. While mass slaughter may appear to demonstrate
a swift and decisive political response to an obviously grave
circumstance, it is not at all clear that mass slaughter would result
in successful eradication of the disease. On the other hand, we do know
that mass slaughter would cause enormous harm and suffering to
thousands of perfectly healthy animals. It may even slow down the
natural process of selection, whereby a population becomes resistant to
CWD over time as individuals who are susceptible to CWD die, and those
genetically resistant survive to successfully reproduce. In a broader
sense, we urge this committee to focus considerable attention on one of
the root causes of this problem: the game farm industry and its role in
fostering the spread of this very dangerous disease. More specifically,
we urge the committee to develop and advance legislation to ban the
interstate and international shipment of deer or elk for use in the
game farm industry. This action is not only well-justified in light of
the current crisis, but also is well within the Federal Government's
area of authority and responsibility. The HSUS also strongly urges the
Committee to support efforts to urge that the control and monitoring of
wildlife, farmed or free-ranging, and diseases such as CWD, be assumed
under the jurisdiction of wildlife agency experts rather than state
agriculture agencies.
Background on Chronic Wasting Disease
Chronic Wasting Disease is a transmissible spongiform
encephalopathy (TSE) of cervids. Natural infections have occurred in
mule deer, white-tailed deer, and Rocky Mountain elk; the disease has
been present in mule deer populations for at least 30 years (Williams
and Young 1980). Other subspecies of elk are probably also susceptible
to CWD (Williams, 2002) as well as other native and exotic cervid
species (e.g. moose, caribou, key deer, sika deer, and fallow deer;
Raymond, et al., 2000).
The TSEs are grouped together because of similarity in symptoms,
pathology, and presumed ancestral agent; the infectious agents are
hypothesized to be prions (infectious proteins without associated
nucleic acids; Williams, 2002). Scrapie of domestic sheep and goats,
bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE) of cattle, and transmissible
mink encephalopathy of farmed mink (Mustela vison) are TSEs of domestic
animals. Scrapie, a TSE of domestic sheep, has been recognized in the
United States since 1947, and it is possible that CWD derived from
scrapie (Williams, 2002).
The overall duration of CWD infection (time from exposure to end-
stage clinical disease) has been difficult to determine in natural
cases but has been experimentally estimated to range between 12 and 34
months (Williams, 2002). The maximum disease course is not known, but
can exceed 25 months in experimentally-infected deer and 34 months in
elk.
Spread of CWD
The unusual biological features of CWD pose significant challenges
for wildlife managers attempting to control or eradicate the disease.
Because TSE agents are extremely resistant in the environment,
transmission may be both direct (from animal to animal) and indirect
(for example, from contaminated soil; Williams, 2002). Concentrating
unnaturally large numbers of deer or elk in captivity or by
supplemental feeding of wild cervids increases the likelihood of direct
and indirect transmission of CWD between individuals as is the case for
many other diseases. Contaminated pastures are thought to have served
as sources of infection in some CWD epidemics (Miller et al. 1998;
Williams, 2002); similar phenomena have been suspected in some
outbreaks of sheep scrapie. The apparent persistence of the CWD agent
in contaminated environments represents a significant obstacle to
eradication of CWD from either farmed or free-ranging cervid
populations (Williams, 2002; Geist, 1995).
The incidence of CWD can be remarkably high in captive cervid
populations. In one infected research facility, more than 90% of mule
deer resident for >2 years died or were euthanized due to illness from
CWD (Williams, 2002). Recently, a high CWD prevalence (about 50%) has
been demonstrated in white-tailed deer confined at an infected Nebraska
elk farm. Among captive elk, CWD was the primary cause of adult
mortality (five of seven, 71%; four of 23, 17%) in two research herds
and a high prevalence (59%) was detected in a group of 17 elk
slaughtered from an infected game farm herd (Peters, et al. 2000).
The potential for density-dependent disease transmission is greater
among animals in captivity than in free-ranging wildlife. Captive
animals are often held at higher than natural densities and thus are
more frequently in direct contact and are more consistently stressed.
Their repeated exposure to the same (potentially contaminated) soil may
exacerbate effects of density on captive cervids.
CWD may be transmitted between captive and wild cervid populations,
in either direction (Coon, et al., 2002), and there is concern that
transmission between cervids and cattle is possible, but this has only
been demonstrated experimentally. (To date, cattle have rarely become
infected when experimentally inoculated with CWD via intracerebral
injection; Hamir et al. 2001.)
Detection
Current quarantine methods for detecting CWD in captive wild
species are unreliable and regulations for disease testing have failed
to prevent the transportation of diseased animals, even though animals
were certified as disease-free. For example, many states require only a
30-day quarantine period before allowing animals to enter the state.
The quarantine period is not sufficient in identifying animals infected
with CWD due to the long incubation periods of the disease (a minimum
of 12-34 months). A live-animal test using tonsil tissue has been
developed and found to be effective for use in mule deer and may also
prove to be effective in white-tailed deer (Williams, 2002).
Control
No treatment is available for animals affected with CWD. Once
clinical signs develop, CWD is invariably fatal. Similarly, no vaccine
is available to prevent CWD infection. In addition, long incubation
periods, subtle early clinical signs, absence of reliable live-animal
diagnostic tests, an extremely persistent infectious-like agent,
possible environmental contamination, and an incomplete understanding
of modes of transmission all constrain options for controlling or
eradicating CWD.
In captive facilities, current management options are limited to
quarantine or killing of CWD-affected herds. In the 1990's, two
attempts to eradicate CWD from cervid research facilities failed; the
causes of these failures were not determined, but environmental
contamination remaining after the herd was killed was likely in both
cases (Williams, 2002). Whether or not contaminated environments can
ever be completely disinfected remains questionable.
Managing CWD in free-ranging animals presents enormous challenges
as well. Management programs established to date focus on containing
CWD and reducing its prevalence in localized areas. Translocating
cervids and maintaining feeding stations have been banned in some
states in an attempt to limit range expansion and decrease
transmission. The slaughter of cervid populations in an area of high
CWD prevalence has been attempted in Colorado as a management
experiment, but the effectiveness of this approach remains to be
determined. It may seem logical that lowered animal densities should
reduce both disease transmission and likelihood of emigration of
affected animals to adjacent areas with no previous incidence of CWD.
However, historic migration patterns and social behaviors
characteristic of some deer and elk populations (e.g. dispersal of
yearling bucks and seasonal movements) may diminish the effectiveness
of wholesale density reduction in controlling CWD (Williams, 2002). In
addition, eliminating most or all of the deer in a given area may
result in immigration of deer from adjacent habitat into an area with
potentially contaminated soil.
The mass slaughter approach has a number of critics. Population
ecologist Dr. Charles Southwick, of the University of Colorado,
believes that CWD may have been around for generations, killing only
those living in captivity or in other stressful conditions, such as
drought or overcrowding. He advises capturing deer and taking biopsies
of tonsil tissue, where evidence of infection may appear before
symptoms develop, at least in mule deer. If this live-animal test were
found to be effective for other cervid species, it would have the
advantage of providing a means to avoid destroying healthy animals
(Southwick, personal communication).
Southwick states that he favors killing animals that display
symptoms of CWD, but he warns that the proposed hunt is likely to
spread the disease by forcing infected deer into other areas and by
creating a depopulated area, with an infective environment, into which
healthy animals will move. Mr. Chairman, I would like to call your
attention to the testimony of Dr. Charles Southwick that was submitted
along with my testimony. In addition to submitting my own testimony, I
am submitting Dr. Southwick's, and I hope the Committee will pay
careful attention to his recommendations.
Managers from the USDA recently declared the current approach of
``slaughter and test'' to be ineffective and worthy of replacement with
better diagnostic testing (Diez, 2002). It is critical that any
management plan put into action by state wildlife departments actually
accomplish the management goal. Killing 14,000 - 15,000 deer (as is
suggested in Wisconsin), after finding only a handful of deer affected
out of the 500 tested, is a drastic measure for which there is little
convincing justification. A sound scientific rationale for this action
is lacking.
Prevention
The HSUS strongly encourages this committee to focus on preventing
the spread of CWD in the first place. Scientists have identified a
number of ``endemic foci'' in Wyoming, Colorado and Nebraska. While
these are considered the core endemic areas for CWD (Williams, 2002),
it has also been found in captive cervids in Colorado, Kansas, Montana,
Nebraska, Oklahoma, Saskatchewan, and South Dakota. It is documented
that spillover of CWD into local free-ranging cervid populations has
probably occurred in at least two locations (Williams, 2002). By
transporting cervids from an endemic area, one is likely to establish
more endemic foci, thereby facilitating the spread of the disease into
new areas (Coon et al., 2002; Williams, 2002). Moratoria on the import
of some or all cervids have been enacted by Colorado, Connecticut,
Indiana, Nebraska, New York, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin; and eight
states have limited importation by banning canned hunts--one of the
primary reasons for translocation of cervids--completely. We submit
that the interstate transport of cervids and other exotic animals kept
at game farm facilities should be prohibited nation-wide, at least
until effective control measures, such as reliable ante-mortem
diagnostic tests and effective vaccination programs, can be developed.
In our view, USDA's Proposed National Program for Captive Elk is wholly
inadequate. USDA appears to be operating with the inflexible assumption
that the business of deer and elk ranching must continue and, given
that assumption, the department describes a herd certification program
that is doomed to fail in containing the spread of CWD. We suggest that
USDA start over in developing a CWD control program, and that the
department seek input from a variety of experts, including
disinterested scientists. The current industry document reads like a
playbook from the game farming industry, which obviously had inordinate
influence in this document.
The HSUS also urges better monitoring of the international and
interstate trade in wildlife. Ranched cervids include both native and
exotic species and scientists believe it is very likely that many
species of the cervid family are susceptible to CWD (Williams, 2002).
Unfortunately, the oversight of exotic mammals falls outside of the
traditional regulatory jurisdiction of state agriculture departments
and state fish and game agencies. In short, these animals often fall
into regulatory limbo at the state level. It is important to monitor
the transport of all species and subspecies of animals that are
potential hosts of the disease--whether they are native or exotic.
I want to take a moment to note that the House and Senate have
pending legislation--H.R. 3464 by Rep. Sam Farr and S. 1655 by Senator
Joe Biden--to ban the transport of captive exotics for the purpose of
being shot in a canned hunting setting--an ethically repugnant and
unsportsmanlike means of killing animals in guaranteed, ``no kill, no
pay'' hunts. Concerns about the humane treatment of animals and the
ethic of fair chase provide ample rationale for enacting this long
overdue legislation. The disease threats posed by CWD makes the case
even more compelling and urgent.
Economics and Ethics
Game ranching has grown dramatically during the last decade,
principally as an alternative animal husbandry industry. Several
states, such as Michigan, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, have
hundreds of game farms, where revenue is generated through the sale of
animal parts, such as velvet or meat, and, in many states, through
canned hunting arrangements.
Scientists, such as Dr. Valerius Geist of the University of
Calgary, have warned for years about the threats posed to wildlife by
game farms (e.g., Geist, 1995). Dr. Geist has decried that game farms
represent unbridled commercialization of wildlife, which runs against
the norms that have dominated wildlife policy in the United States
developed in the early part of the 20th century; that these operations
pose disease threats posed to wildlife and the livestock industry; and
that they contribute to the abuse of animals (Geist, 2002). The HSUS
warned about the excesses of this industry for the past two decades,
and these concerns have proved prophetic. This industry does far more
harm than good in our society. Neither this Congress nor the states
should subsidize its operations, nor should it support of its
perpetuation or expansion.
Taxpayers are footing the bill for crisis management of a problem
to which the game farm industry has meaningfully and tangibly
contributed. The Federal Government has also spent millions of taxpayer
dollars to buy out and bail out these private owners. Their business is
a risky one, and everybody who invested in it knew the risks. The
Federal Government and the states have no obligation to rescue them now
that they have helped spread a major wildlife disease throughout the
country.
The people of Montana--mainly hunters--witnessed the state fail to
address this emerging problem, and took the matter into their own hands
by qualifying and passing a statewide ballot initiative in November
2000 to ban canned hunts and to halt the establishment of any new game
farming operations. A number of other states, such as Wyoming, have
courageously and persistently resisted the efforts of the industry to
gain a foothold. The Federal Government should take this cue from the
people and from foresighted policy makers. It is time to put an end to
the interstate movement of animals for use in this industry.
The industry claims it generates millions in economic activity.
That may be true, but its operations have spawned disease threats that
have cost millions to address. The costs will climb far higher, as we
just begin to come to grips with the scope of the problem. Further, the
spread of CWD threatens industries that generate revenues that dwarf
the monies produced by game ranches, notably the wildlife watching and
hunting industries. A columnist with the Denver Post noted,
``Colorado's 160 domestic elk and deer ranches are, at most, a $44
million a year industry. So to coddle a $44 million specialty business,
legislators potentially jeopardized two economic engines worth more
than $5 billion to Colorado. What business book did these guys read?''
The Congress will have support for strong action to combat game
farms from an unusual coalition of animal advocates and rank-in-file
hunters. Most responsible hunters deplore these canned hunts, which one
outdoor writer from Colorado recently labeled a ``fish-in-a-barrel
practice by which pseudo-hunters pay tens of thousands of dollars to
execute a ``trophy'' animal for the mantle.'' Animal advocates,
conservationists, and hunters are now mounting a major effort in Oregon
to outlaw game farms, and I am quite certain that similar interests
will coalesce in other states.
Authority
A national trend is emerging whereby authority to manage or license
captive hunting operations is being wrested from state wildlife
agencies and turned over to state departments of agriculture (for a
good example of this in Vermont, see Buck, In press). The stated
rationale has been that cervids represent alternative livestock
opportunities for farmers and therefore should be managed by
departments of agriculture. Advocates of the industry are driving this
transfer of authority because they recognize that state wildlife
agencies are carefully examining the disease transmission issues so
central to this public policy discussion. (Coons et al., 2002).
Agriculture departments are less sensitive to wildlife disease and
humane issues than wildlife departments. Thus far, 21 states have
handed over management of captive cervids to their agriculture
departments. It is a ``confusing state of management affairs'' given
that one can find ten different game farm management approaches by
surveying ten different states (Buck, 2002). This does not make sense
biologically, economically, or logistically. CWD and wild cervid
populations do not recognize state boundaries and, as long as some
states continue to allow the importation of cervids, their neighboring
states remain at risk. That fact buttresses the case for Federal action
in halting interstate transport of cervids.
Conclusion
The Humane Society of the United States urges this Committee to
take action to prevent further spread of CWD. When risks are
identified, they should be avoided. With this in mind, we urge a
nation-wide moratorium on inter-state translocations of cervids, at
least until more is known about CWD and effective means of its control.
We believe that it is unreasonable to advance a massive kill of
wild cervid populations in the absence of compelling scientific
justification for the effectiveness of this type of action. In addition
to the questionable efficacy, we are concerned that the majority of
does killed at this time of the year will be nursing fawns that are
hidden away some distance from the doe. When nursing mothers are
killed, these fawns will die from starvation, and their carcasses will
rot. If the fawns are also infected, this will be an additional major
contamination factor in the environment, as well as causing enormous
suffering for the fawns.
We also suggest severe restrictions on supplemental feeding and
baiting of cervids as part of an overall effort to reduce direct
transmission of CWD within wild populations. Finally, we ask that the
Committee ensure that the management of free-ranging and captive
cervids return to the jurisdiction of state wildlife agencies, whose
personnel have the knowledge and expertise to address the movements and
diseases of wildlife.
References
Buck, J. In press. Status and management implications for captive
cervid ranching in the Northeast. 67th Transactions of the North
American Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference.
Buck, J. 2002. Status and management implications for captive
cervid ranching in the Northeast. Paper delivered to the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Dallas, Texas, April 4.
Coon, T.G., H. Campa, A.B. Felix, R.B. Peyton, S.R. Winterstein,
2002. Farming captive cervids: a review of social, economic, and
ecological opportunities and risks in Michigan and North America. Paper
delivered to the North American Wildlife and Natural Resources
Conference, Dallas, Texas, April 4.
Diez, J. 2002. The Federal role in regulating alternative livestock
operations. Paper delivered to the North American Wildlife and Natural
Resources Conference, Dallas, Texas, April 4.
Geist, V., 2002. Game ranching and the North American System of
Wildlife Conservation. Paper delivered to the North American Wildlife
and Natural Resources Conference, Dallas, Texas, April 4.
Geist, V., 1995. North American Policies of Wildlife Conservation.
Chapter 3 In: Geist, V. and I. McTaggart Cowan (eds). Wildlife
Conservation Policy, Detselig, Calgary, Canada.
Hamir, A.N., R.C. Cutlip, J.M. Miller, E.S. Williams, M.J. Stack,
M.W. Miller, K.I. O'Rourke, and M.J. Chaplin, 2001. Preliminary
findings on the experimental transmission of chronic wasting disease
agent of mule deer to cattle. Journal of Veterinary Diagnostic
Investigation 134: 91-96.
Peters, J., J.M. Miller, A.L. Jenny, T.L. Peterson, and K.P.
Carmichael, 2000. Immunohistochemical diagnosis of chronic wasting
disease in preclinically affected elk from a captive herd. Journal of
Veterinary Diagnostic Investigation 12: 579-582.
Raymond, G.J., A. Bossers, L.D. Raymond, K.I. O'Rourke, L.E.
McHolland, P.K. Bryant III, M.W. Miller, E.S. Williams, M. Smits, and
B. Caughey. 2000. Evidence of a molecular barrier limiting
susceptibility of humans, cattle and sheep to chronic wasting disease.
EMBO J. 19(17):4425-4430.
Williams, E. S., 2002. Chronic wasting disease: implications and
challenges for wildlife managers. Paper delivered to the North American
Wildlife and Natural Resources Conference, Dallas, Texas, April 4.
Williams, E.S. and Young, S. 1980. Chronic wasting disease of
captive mule deer: A spongiform encephalopathy. Journal of Wildlife
Diseases 16: 89-98.
______
[The response to questions submitted for the record by Mr.
Pacelle follows:]
Response to questions submitted by Wayne Pacelle
1) Why do you emphasize the need for a moratorium on game farms and
``canned hunts'' in your testimony?
The HSUS urges a ban on the interstate movement of deer and elk to
and from game farms and ``canned hunt'' facilities. It is well
documented that the incidence of Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has been
prevalent in a number of game farms in the United States and Canada. In
some captive cervid populations on game farms in North America,
infection rates have exceeded 50 percent; these are extraordinarily
high infection rates, and they suggest that the environmental
conditions on game farms are highly conducive to the onset and spread
of the infection. Several prominent scientists reason that unusually
high densities of animals on game farms make the animals particularly
susceptible to infection. Once the disease infects an individual in a
captive population, other animals in the setting are likely to be
infected, given the high densities and confinement.
Recognizing that CWD has spread to at least nine states and that
game farms appear to be infection hot spots, a growing number of
states--including, most recently, Mississippi, North Carolina, Texas
and Virginia--have adopted policies to ban shipments of deer and elk
into their states. These states fear that infected animals will be
introduced and threaten their populations of free-ranging and captive
cervids. The risks posed by the introduction of CWD through imports
greatly exceed the benefits provided to a state by importing a small
number of deer and elk. A nation-wide moratorium on the interstate
transport of deer and elk is an urgently needed component of a larger
plan to prevent further spread of CWD.
While exotic game ranches have not yet had major problems with CWD
infections, as compared to deer and elk farms, researchers have
demonstrated that the infective prion has a low species barrier and is
likely to infect exotic cervids as well as cervids native to North
America. Exotic deer and elk are transported among states to supply
exotic game ranches, and these interstate shipments may spread CWD.
Animal advocates and responsible hunters are highly critical of
exotic game ranches because of the unsporting and unfair nature of the
commercial killing and the threats posed to native wildlife by the
spread of a number of wildlife diseases and by escapes of exotics.
Voters in Montana approved a November 2000 ballot initiative,
instigated by hunters, that banned canned hunts and outlawed the
establishment of any new game farms.
The Federal Government is spending millions of dollars to control
and to contain the spread of non-indigenous species. The exotic hunting
industry has a history of allowing the incidental release of exotics
and thereby threatening native wildlife, and the industry may also play
a role in spreading CWD. Let's anticipate and prevent the problem,
instead of reacting to the problem once it occurs.
Representative Sam Farr has introduced bipartisan legislation in
the House to combat half of the problem'the interstate transport of
exotic mammals, and the CWD threat adds a compelling argument to an
already overwhelming case for enactment of this measure.
2) Is depopulation necessary? Has it proven an effective strategy?
If a deer or elk contracts CWD, the animal will die. Because of the
degenerative effect of the disease, infected animals will suffer before
they perish. The HSUS, which seeks to prevent animal suffering, wants
to stem any further spread of CWD.
That said, we are very skeptical that depopulation strategies
focused on free-ranging populations can work. On a game farm, it is
possible to kill all of the animals in a confined setting. But in a
free-ranging population, with no artificial or natural barriers to
block emigration or immigration into an area where infected animals
live or have lived, it will be virtually impossible to conduct an
extermination program.
Deer can be elusive animals. It would take a massive investment of
human labor to identify and shoot all of the deer in a particular area.
In an area covering hundreds of square miles, an extermination plan is
almost doomed to fail. What's more, any extermination plan would have
to be conducted over months, perhaps years, and during that time, deer
from adjacent areas would immigrate into the newly vacant habitat
because of the food availability and the lack of competition among
conspecifics. The degree of difficulty in conducting an extermination
program is even greater in ecotypes with thick vegetative cover.
Conducting an extermination program in an arid environment in the West
is far easier than in one in the East or Midwest that is heavily
forested and provides abundant deer cover.
If CWD is identified in a number of regions within a state, the
task becomes even more logically impossible, with enormous capital and
labor costs. There will also be other social costs associated with the
human disruption caused by the number of people required to shoot so
many animals.
Extermination is often used in an agricultural environment when
disease outbreaks occur. In that setting, such plans may be well
justified in certain circumstances. To apply this same strategy to
free-ranging wild populations is dangerous and likely to fail.
Wisconsin is just now launching an intended extermination program,
and it is too early to make a judgment about its effectiveness. There
is considerable skepticism among residents of the state that such a
program will work. Colorado has also launched a regional extermination
program, and it is too early to make judgments about its effectiveness.
While these efforts may satisfy the urge to take action in response to
a very real crisis, we suggest more thought needs to go into ensuring
that management efforts taken are wise and effective.
Mr. McInnis. I will begin the questioning. First of all,
Mr. Pacelle, I am not so sure that you have not confused the
agendas, your opposition to domestic farming and this
particular disease. Let me tell you, I do not know anybody that
takes comfort in going out and wiping out or eradicating the
deer population. I certainly see no comfort in doing that.
But prior to the condemnation, using words ``draconian''
and ``political response,'' pal, you had better come up with an
alternative. You cannot ignore the cancer, and in my opinion,
that is exactly what it is. Now, the fact that it existed for
hundreds of years, cancer existed for hundreds of years. But
the fact that it was out there for hundreds of years, we did
not take the philosophy, well, instead of going in and doing
surgery and physically removing the cancer, we ought to let
it--you know, it has been here 100 years. That is a pretty
draconian effort. So I just want to point that out.
Mr. Pacelle. Well, I would like--
Mr. McInnis. Just a second.
Mr. Pacelle. Sure.
Mr. McInnis. The live test is absolutely a priority for us.
I mean, everybody wants a live test. We do not like ratios of
killing a couple hundred deer and finding one, if we even find
one. I do not know anyone that does not do that. That is a big
priority, so I agree with you on that point.
But let me tell you, in the long run--in the short run, we
have to sacrifice. We have to eradicate. The only reason we are
doing that is not for a hunter jamboree. The reason we are
doing that is that in the long term, we have established,
healthy--and I stress the word healthy--herds out there.
Now, the issue of whether or not elk farming should be and
so on is an issue for another day. Our focus today here is as
you have heard it.
Now, very quickly--
Mr. Pacelle. Mr. Chairman, may I respond briefly?
Mr. McInnis. In a minute, I will let you.
In regards to the agencies here, I know you are having a
meeting in 7 days or so, but I do not want to task force this
thing and let time go by. I think we have heard agreement
across the board, not only on the Committee, but with our
witnesses out there, about, one, State primacy, two, the need
for funds, and I am interested in the Department of Agriculture
responses as testified by the committee up here because I
understand the Department of Agriculture has put money out for
purchasing of animals and things like that. But this
coordinated effort is an absolute most and it needs to move
very quickly.
Now, I also have another concern out there that is shared
by Mr. Kind and the Governor of his State, and that is the
economies of these States and the economies of these ranching
communities. I have got ranchers out there that are barely
able--what takes them over the top year to year is the fact
that they have got hunting. And frankly, in my area, because it
is such a popular area, the minute they lose the ranches, it
goes to 35-acre condominium projects. So I have got some
interest, my own self-motivated interest, in getting a cure.
Again, I bring to the attention of our agencies, we want
this a high priority, and I am not trying to hold my bill over
your head, but the fact is, that is how we got our fire council
put together finally between the agencies. So I hope we get
rapid response on that.
Dr. Zebarth, your testimony was appreciated. Obviously, it
has devastated your industry in those particular States. It is
not a particularly lucrative industry anyway, and I can tell
you that with the elk breeders in Colorado, we have received
nothing but cooperation. Obviously, they are concerned. We have
disputes as to what the animals are worth and things like that,
but overall, we all agree we have all got the same focus in
mind and that is very helpful.
Mr. Pacelle, I will give you a couple seconds here and then
I will move on.
Mr. Pacelle. Thank you very much. Mr. Chairman, we all
agree that eradication, killing many animals, especially
healthy animals, is not a favorable course of action. We all
agree on that point. My question is not to the idea that we
want to get at this problem but whether that is a worthy
response and whether it will be effective. So I would urge you
to look at my testimony, which lays it out a little more
carefully.
But also, I do think the issue of elk and deer ranching is
a very salient issue. This is the way that--how did this get
into Wisconsin? These animals are being transported across the
country. Game farms have been identified as the main areas
where CWD has been present, and many population ecologists,
biologists, and the hunting community have castigated the game
farm industry. Montana hunters led a ballot initiative which
the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation supported to ban the
establishment of new game farms for the very reason--
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Pacelle, I said a minute and you are
taking advantage of the time.
Mr. Pacelle. OK. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Mr. Zebarth, let me respond very quickly. I
should point out, Mr. Pacelle, that earlier in your testimony,
you referred to Dr. Miller's testimony about the fact it has
been around for hundreds or years, or possibly could be around.
Elk breeders have not been around for that period of time, to
the best of my knowledge, commercial elk farming.
Mr. Pacelle. Right.
Mr. McInnis. So it did not necessarily bring that in. But I
think, in fairness, Mr. Zebarth, you should respond to that.
But again, I want to run the time because I want Mr. Kind to
have an opportunity to raise questions.
Dr. Zebarth. In the case of Wisconsin, in the area where
the wild white-tailed deer were found, there is one farm
facility. That facility has never had CWD, has not received
animals from a CWD-positive herd. In the sampling course that
was done in a ten-mile radius circle around there, there was an
emphasis of depopulating free-ranging white-tailed deer in the
neighborhood of that facility. All the white-tailed deer that
were depopulated close to that farm facility were negative. The
deer that were positive were in the northern half of that
depopulation zone. There is not any scientific evidence that
the case in Wisconsin came from that farm facility or from any
farm facility.
In regard to the question or comment that was made earlier
about the animals that had come from infected herds into
Wisconsin, the program that is in place, USDA-APHIS's program,
follows trace outs. Those animals were followed, depopulated,
and were negative. Thank you.
Mr. McInnis. Again, let me stress to our guests today and
to the Committee, of course, we want live testing, and to me,
that is one of the highest priorities we can do, is get into
that live testing. That will give us all a great deal of
comfort if we can just figure it out.
Mr. Kind?
Mr. Kind. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank the
witnesses again for your patience and your testimony here
today.
Let me just reiterate what Mr. Zebarth has testified to.
Yes, there is no known case of an imported infected elk
infecting the herds in Wisconsin, but it is still deeply
troubling to hear reports that the State over the last few
years was still importing live elk from out West in known
infected herds. That is troubling, that the State of Wisconsin
was still allowing that to occur when warning bells were being
signaled and that.
I understand now the State has passed a new law that
prohibits the importation of either live elk or deer from
abroad unless they meet a 5-year certification requirement as
far as the surveillance and the monitoring, and I think that is
a positive step forward.
Dr. Butler, I was hoping you could shed a little bit of
light on information we received from Chris Smith, who is
Congressional Liaison, USDA, in response to a request the
Wisconsin delegation made to USDA about 2 months ago, and that
was for some assistance in the emergency discretionary fund
under CCC to deal with the urgency that exists in the State and
the rising expenses that we are dealing with the State, as
well.
I do not know if you have been informed, but we received a
message from Mr. Smith last night that USDA would be denying
our request, which is very disappointing and very troubling in
the fact that we already have an authorized and appropriated
program set up ostensibly for this purpose, and yet the USDA is
denying our request, forcing, I think, individual members to
have to go through the appropriation bills through line items
at a time when the Administration is chastising Congress to
hold the lid on line items and add-ons with these bills. If you
have some information, I would be happy to be enlightened about
that decision.
Mr. Butler. Thank you, Mr. Kind. I do have minimal
information and will certainly take back the comments from the
Committee this morning of all the dialog and increase the
intensity of our discussions within the Department and try to
work with you in any way that we can. This is a serious issue
not only for your State but for all the States represented
here.
Mr. Kind. I appreciate that and we will follow up,
obviously, because it has just been a phone conversation, no
written word yet, so we will have to do that.
Mr. Groat, I appreciate your attendance and testimony, too,
and I commend your agency for the work that you have done in
this area already, the expertise that you are building up. In
fact, I am familiar with some of the things going on with
USGS's lab, the Wildlife Health Center located in Madison, in
development of a live diagnostic test. I wonder if you could
inform the Committee today in regards to where we are in
developing a live test for CWD and how much longer we are going
to have to wait before we have something reliable.
Mr. Groat. Well, I think the live test you refer to is the
tonsil test, which does allow sampling of an animal and
returning it to a healthy state while we wait for the period to
determine whether or not the animal is infected. The problem
with that test is that it takes a number of days and a period
of time to determine whether it is or not, and then if it is,
if you have not got some way of finding it, you have got a
problem.
So the real emphasis on finding a live test that is both
quick and efficient, as the Chairman pointed out, is extremely
critical in all of this from a management point of view and
from a health point of view.
I wish I could report to you that there are large leaps of
progress being made in developing new live tests. I know, as
others have pointed out, that there is a lot of interest in
this and efforts going on, and perhaps the symposia that have
been discussed here where the workers get together and can
share their knowledge and look in the most fruitful directions
to go will give us some early indications of where that needs
to go. But it is clearly an extremely high priority for us in
the free-ranging populations as well as those that are
concerned about farm populations.
Mr. Kind. Thank you, and we will look forward to working
with you and obviously with the USDA, too, as we try to develop
a comprehensive approach to this issue. I think it is going to
be very important that we mesh some of the things that are
being done right now, but on a much more comprehensive and
collaborative scale.
Mr. Butler, back to you again. Do we know right now where
all the farm-captive herds are from State to State, the exact
location of all those captive herds? Do we have that
information?
Mr. Butler. I do not think we do, but we can request that
information through the State departments, and I do think
different States have different tracking mechanisms, but I am
not certain we do at the Department.
Mr. Kind. OK. I think that, too, may be an important step,
just to get some baseline data here in the location of it, what
States have already set up, because I have a feeling as we get
into this, there is kind of a hodge-podge of laws being created
from State to State right now and we need to find out what
works and what makes sense, but without preempting what States
are attempting to do.
I am scared like everyone else is in regards to some of the
reports in Wisconsin, the potential of this disease and the
whole herd kill-offs that are being proposed, Mr. Pacelle, but
I think Mr. McInnis raises a very salient question. If not
this, then what? This is a very serious issue and I think there
is a lot of science here that we are just scratching the
surface on in regards to the spread of this disease, how it is
contracted, how it is transmitted, the environmental
contamination that Mr. Osborne raised today, too, and whether
or not just slaughtering tens of thousands of deer is really
the best approach and the safest and most practical way of
doing it. But until we have some plausible alternatives, some
suggestions, I think that is going to be, by and large, the
response we are going to see.
Mr. Pacelle. I wonder if it could even be done
successfully, in the sense that you can eradicate a population.
Mr. Kind. That is what I was really trying to get to with
my Governor, is when the shooting starts, I know that the deer
run and they spread and whether this is going to compound the
problem rather than alleviate it, because we are not talking
about captive herds. We are talking wildlife animals that are
out in the free already.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence and for
holding this hearing today. I appreciate it.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Kind. I also thank the members
of your State, your Congressional delegation. They have been
very helpful in regards to this.
Mr. Tancredo?
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize for not
being able to be here during the live testimony.
My questions would be really centered in one particular
area, and so perhaps the gentleman from the Park Service could
respond. Are you Mr. Jones?
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir.
Mr. Tancredo. Mr. Jones, I understand that in testimony
earlier, when the question was raised of how, in fact, these
infected animals are treated and how the parks treat this
issue, that someone stated that animals were killed when they
exhibited symptoms. But, of course, this does not--I mean, in
light of all the testimony we have had today and the fact that
it seems to us, or at least it is becoming apparent that the
only way to handle this is with an aggressive treatment, which
means depopulation, how does this fit? How does this concept of
only dealing with an animal when it has exhibited symptoms fit
with the idea that we have to depopulate the herd from which it
came?
Mr. Jones. I am not sure the full answer is depopulation. I
am certainly not a biologist or a veterinarian. But I think the
generic question you ask is a very valid one. What we need to
do, though, is a comprehensive Chronic Wasting Disease in deer
and elk management plan for lands including Rocky Mountain
National Park. We have talked to the State of Colorado about
that and that this plan would be developed in full partnership
with them.
Certainly, the history of the National Park Service,
because of the body of laws that are unique to the National
Park System for the preservation of wildlife, unfortunately
comes with that a bigger burden for both planning, bureaucracy,
and compliance issues, because we also have attracted over the
years a long history of lawsuits related to wildlife management
in national parks.
So our approach in this case, in asking to do a
comprehensive plan in cooperation with the State, is to take a
few months, be deliberative, and, therefore, also hope not
being in court for several years.
Mr. Tancredo. I have no doubt that you will be roundly
condemned for whichever decision you make.
Mr. Jones. That is a fair assessment, sir.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Tancredo. But you should be used to that by now, so we
have to go ahead and make what we believe to be the right
decision and let the devil take the highmost.
The Park Service classification of exotic disease, if that
fits, I mean, can you use that description and would that give
you greater latitude if, in fact, you--
Mr. Jones. Yes, sir, in the case of Chronic Wasting
Disease, just as we do in the case of rabies, we do consider
this an exotic disease and, therefore, are pursuing our
management policies under that concept.
Mr. Tancredo. So that fits with the policy to just destroy
the animal with the symptom.
Mr. Jones. Actually, it also fits with expanding to do a
more comprehensive plan that addresses trying to eradicate the
disease in the park.
Mr. Tancredo. It allows it or does it require it? If you
classify something as an exotic disease, are you required to
take certain measures beyond--
Mr. Jones. I think the case certainly could be made that it
would require us to do that, yes, sir.
Mr. Tancredo. I guess I am confused. You have classified
Chronic Wasting Disease as an exotic disease or you have not?
Mr. Jones. Absent any other information to the contrary,
from a management perspective, we consider it an exotic
disease, not a natural disease. Therefore, we are committed--we
share the concern, especially in a disease like this that has
implications far beyond national park boundaries and,
therefore, we do take it seriously. For example, and Mr.
Chairman, I really commend you for holding this hearing because
the attention you brought to the issue has, shall we say,
facilitated the decisionmaking process on funding issues. So,
for example, the National Park Service has committed an
additional $1.2 million to expand the research and to help
develop a management plan to address these issues.
Mr. Tancredo. Thank you very much.
Mr. McInnis. Thank you, Mr. Tancredo.
I want to thank the panel. I think today's hearing--let me
explain for those of you that are new to Congressional
hearings. Unfortunately, because of the compression of time, we
have numerous conflicts. The fact that we had the attendance
that we did this morning was really a pretty good showing for a
committee hearing. That is not the standard attendance.
However, what is critical here is not just the fact that
the Committee members are present to hear you and have these
discussions. Getting these things onto the record is very
important and it is also well covered by the press, who I have
found the majority of times have been very responsible in
regards to that.
So I do not want you to be frustrated by the fact that just
Mr. Tancredo and I are left up here on the panel. The message
is clear, I hope from our direction to you, and the information
and knowledge that you have given from your direction to us has
been most helpful this morning.
So I thank the panel. I thank all the participants who
appeared today and the Committee now stands in adjournment.
[Whereupon, at 1 p.m., the Subcommittees were adjourned.]
The following information was submitted for the record:
LBastian, Frank Owen, M.D., Tulane University
Health Science Center, Statement submitted for the record
LHart, Jerry, Arvada, Colorado, Letter submitted
for the record
LKrut, Steve, Executive Director, American
Association of Meat Processors, Letter submitted for the record
LLundquist, Ronald, President, Colorado
Sportsmen's Coalition, Letter submitted for the record
LMap of Chronic Wasting Disease in North America
submitted for the record
LSouthwick, Charles H., M.S., Ph.D., Professor
Emeritus, Environmental., Population and Organismic Biology,
University of Colorado, Statement submitted for the record
LSchad, Mark P., President, Ohio Association of
Meat Processors, Director at Large, American Association of
Meat Processors, Letter submitted for the record
LSteele, Dick, DVM, President, Colorado
Sportsmen's Wildlife Fund, and President, Western Colorado
Sportsmen's Council, Letter submitted for the record
LYoung, John, DVM, President, Colorado Veterinary
Medical Association, Letter submitted for the record
[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Bastian
follows:]
Statement of Frank Owen Bastian, M.D., Tulane University Health Science
Center
INTRODUCTION:
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this hearing of the
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health: House Committee on Resources
regarding the need for funding for Research, Surveillance and finding a
cure for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). I am a Neuropathologist and
have spent most of my professional career (over 25 years) searching for
the cause of Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (CJD) and the other
Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies (TSE), of which CWD is the
manifestation of the same disease in deer and elk. I have outlined the
need for a more diversified research effort and for additional
governmental funding in a number of TSE symposia, in a monograph
entitled ``Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease and Other Transmissible Spongiform
Encephalopathes'' published in 1991 (Mosby/YearBook), and in Testimony
given before the house committee on Government Reform and Oversight
(January 1997). I currently am funded by the NINDS to continue my
studies that have linked a bacterium, Spiroplasma mirum, to CJD and the
other TSE's. In this testimony I will deal with the problems associated
with CWD, and my evidence for the presence of Spiroplasma in TSE-
infected cases, which could lead to other strategies for handling the
CWD problem
BACKGROUND:
The TSE's are infectious diseases of animals and humans, wherein
the infectious filterable agent causes the brains to turn into a spongy
state associated with rapid clinical neurological deterioration.
Patients afflicted with CJD (the human form of TSE) die within a few
months of onset of clinical signs. TSE is uniformly fatal in both human
and animal infections. TSE in animal populations are represented by
scrapie (in sheep and goats), transmissible mink encephalopathy, bovine
spongiform encephalopathy (BSE or 'Mad Cow Disease'), and CWD in deer
and elk. We have had scattered flocks of sheep afflicted with scrapie
in this country, but BSE has not been reported. CJD occurs sporadically
throughout the United States with usually 3 to 4 cases per year in a
city the size of Mobile, Alabama. I suspect that the true incidence of
CJD is more like 1 per 100,000 rather than the 1 per million incidences
adhered to by the CDC. This discrepancy in CJD numbers is due to more
awareness of these diseases among clinicians and pathologists.
The emergence of new variant of CJD disease in the UK in 1996
raised a new set of issues. Teenagers were dying of CJD, which is
unusual since sporadic cases of CJD usually occur in older people- 40
to 80 years of age. Furthermore, the neuropathology of this so-called
new variant CJD (nvCJD) indicated evidence of a more virulent form of
the TSE agent, in that it produced a ``florid'' amyloid plaque. Serial
passage of Sporadic CJD tissue in experimental animals produces this
identical plaque along with a shortened incubation. This more virulent
form of TSE agent probably evolved in the UK from the practice of
feeding cattle feed contaminated with TSE-infected animal parts. This
adaptation or mutation of the agent implies that the TSE agent
possesses nucleic acid as its replicative machinery. CWD is
particularly worrisome because the neuropathology in the infected deer
shows the presence of the same ``florid'' amyloid plaque, which implies
that CWD is akin to a more virulent form of the TSE agent. It is
particularly disturbing that CWD is currently rapidly spreading through
the Western States and presents a serious threat to the wild deer
population throughout the United States.
HANDLING THE CWD PROBLEM:
The goal of the committee in dealing with CWD is admirable in
establishing a surveillance system and finding a cure. However, there
are major impediments to those goals. Firstly, the identity of the
agent has not been established. As a result, there is no pre-clinical
diagnostic test. Therefore, we know very little about the epidemiology
of CWD. We have no idea how the disease is transmitted or what the
distribution of the CWD agent is in nature. We don't even know what
tissues or secretions from the infected deer are infectious. Since the
prion theory was proposed in 1982, there have been few studies of TSE
animal models. I will deal with the goals proposed by the committee in
this section.
1. NEED FOR RESEARCH:
The problem in dealing with CWD is that we know very little about
the pathogenesis of this disease. The identity of the agent has not
been resolved even though there has been extensive search. We do know,
from experiments with scrapie, that the agent is uniquely resistant to
fixatives, heat and radiation unlike known pathogens of disease. This
has led to a bizarre theory that the agent is a replicating protein. A
small molecular weight protein, referred to as the prion, accumulates
in the TSE tissues and is protease resistant. However, there is
evidence that this protein is likely a reaction product since it does
not correlate with levels of infectivity. In some instances (5 to 15%
of CJD cases) the prion does not accumulate. Purified preparations of
the prion are not infective. Careful review of the data has indicated
that most of the TSE agent is killed by boiling and fixatives. Only a
tiny population of the agent survives suggesting alternative
explanations such as alternate forms of bacteria.
My research has uncovered evidence of the association of a
bacterium, Spiroplasma mirum, with the TSE's. In 1976, I found by
electron microscopy an inclusion within the brain of a patient with CJD
that closely resembled a newly described bacterium seen primarily in
insects and associated with plant diseases. I subsequently studied the
neuropathology of experimental Spiroplasma infection in rats and showed
that Spiroplasma induced a spongiform alteration of the rat brain
identical to the spongiform change seen in CJD and the other TSE's. In
1981, a unique fibril protein was found in protease-treated scrapie-
infected brains, referred to as scrapie-associated fibrils (SAF). SAF
is seen only in association with TSE infection and are different from
the ``prion''. SAF appears to correlate directly with scrapie-
infectivity. If you treat Spiroplasma broth cultures with proteases,
you will find within the bacterium a core of fibrils identical to SAF.
These Spiroplasma fibrils are seen only in this microbe and not within
any other bacteria. Based upon this evidence, I obtained antiserum
specific to scrapie and showed by Western Blot, that Spiroplasma
proteins cross-react with scrapie antiserum. More recently, I have
shown the presence of Spiroplasma DNA in CJD-infected human brains and
in scrapie-infected sheep brain, but not in controls. These data
represent direct evidence for the association of Spiroplasma with the
TSE's.
I propose that Spiroplasma is likely the causal agent and that the
prion is simply a reaction product, possibly serving as a mechanism for
hiding from the immune system. If so, more research is needed to study
the role of Spiroplasma in the pathogenesis of CWD. We should be able,
through study of the DNA findings, to characterize the different
strains of the agent. The relatedness between the agent of CWD to the
other TSE's should easily be determined and may give some clue as to
the source of the infection.
Unfortunately, most research monies have been dedicated to prion
research, with funding essentially controlled by prion advocates and
limited to 5 or 6 laboratories in the United States. More money is
needed to fund a more diversified approach. Currently, only $ 20
million is dedicated to TSE research in this country and the bulk of
that ($ 14 million) goes to one laboratory. As I stated in my prior
testimony, it is essential to encourage more unbiased researchers into
the field, and that goal can only be accomplished by providing more
funding opportunities. Therefore, we have to remove the control of
government funding exercised by the prion advocates. A year ago,
Senator Hatch's office proposed a commission to oversee research
efforts for TSE's. Governmental officials in charge of TSE in this
country quickly stated that they had everything under control and that
there was no need for a commission. Obviously they were wrong and there
is a need for new direction in dealing with this potentially dangerous
situation.
2. THE NEED FOR SURVEILLANCE:
The second goal of the committee is dependent upon the development
of a pre-clinical diagnostic test, which currently is not available.
Again, the problem is that the agent has not been conclusively
identified and, therefore, it has been impossible to study the
epidemiology of CWD. It is becoming apparent that many more animals are
infected than clinically evident. There are reports of sheep flocks
developing clinical scrapie in one animal, but when all the flock is
killed and examined, several other animals carry the disease by
examination of tissues. This experience has been noted in examination
of CWD-infected deer and elk populations. Recent experiments that have
shown that hay mites contain the scrapie agent, suggesting that a
vector may be involved. Indeed, when a deer penned with other animals
comes down with CWD, all the animals in the pen develop the disease,
suggesting the work of a vector or exposure to secretions or excrement.
Older experiments done in the 1960's have shown evidence of lateral
transmission of scrapie in rodents, which supports this concept.
Even though the identification of the transmissible agent is not
solved, all governmental funding for development of a test has been
limited to studies involving prion detection. The rationale for that
approach is flawed since 1) the prion appears to be a late
manifestation in the disease process; 2) there is evidence that the
prion is not the agent; and 3) the prion is not present in a
significant number of TSE cases. Furthermore, most detection methods
for the prion are complex and not practical for use as a screening
method. I propose that detection methods for Spiroplasma in the TSE's
would involve a strategy, which could lead to practical low cost
methodology. Methods would involve both a sensitive DNA test of
peripheral blood and a screening of antibodies in blood or spinal fluid
using ELISA methodology. Using the bacterial probe should allow
resolving some of the questions regarding the distribution of the
punitive bacterium in nature. We could determine whether there is a
link between CWD and the recent deaths of young people in Colorado from
CJD.
3. FINDING A CURE:
The recent reports of response of experimental scrapie infection to
tetracyclines raises the question whether an antibiotic treatment is
feasible for CWD. Our experience with experimental Spiroplasma
infection in vitro is that the bacterium is resistant to all
antibiotics except tetracycline. Perhaps a bactericidal antibiotic
could be developed for attacking this CWD agent. Another approach would
be to follow-up on the immune cross-reactivity of Spiroplasma proteins
with scrapie and develop a vaccine that would be effective in
preventing TSE infection.
CONCLUSION:
As in my prior testimony on TSE's in 1997, I have recommended more
funding for investigation of CWD. The CWD problem is at a critical
point and requires a broad research approach looking for alternative
agents. The current actions of the USDA of depopulation will not work
in the long run and we need a more defined plan of action. Hopefully,
the committee will consider setting up a commission of scientists and
informed lay people to oversee the attempt to stop this deadly scourge.
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Hart follows:]
May 10, 2002
THE HONORABLE SCOTT McINNIS
THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
215 CANNON HOUSE OFFICE BLDG.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20515
DEAR REPRESENTATIVE McINNIS,
I HAVE BEEN ADVISED THAT YOU WILL BE CONDUCTING A HEARING ON
CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE ON MAY 16 AND THE WRITTEN COMMENTS WILL BE
ACCEPTED. I WOULD LIKE TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING COMMENTS FOR
CONSIDERATION.
GOVERNOR OWENS HAS INITIATED AN AGGRESSIVE PROGRAM TO PREVENT THE
SPREAD OF CWD IN WESTERN COLORADO AND COMMITTED TO AN AGGRESSIVE
MANAGEMENT PROGRAM IN THE ENDEMIC AREA.
ALTHOUGH COLORADO IS THE EPICENTER OF THE ENDEMIC AREA FOR CHRONIC
WASTING DISEASE, MANAGEMENT OF CWD CAN NO LONGER BE A ``STATE ISSUE''.
CWD HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED IN MULTIPLE STATES, CANADA AND OTHER COUNTRIES.
IT WILL NOW REQUIRE PARTICIPATION AND COORDINATION AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL
BY DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, THE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, THE
CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.
THEREFORE I AM REQUESTING THAT AN ADVISORY BOARD CONSISTING OF
REPRESENTATIVES FROM THOSE AGENCIES BE ESTABLISHED TO COORDINATE
EFFORTS IN RESEARCH, MONITORING AND MANAGEMENT OF CWD. THIS COMMITTEE
WOULD PROVIDE INPUT TO CONGRESS ON THE NEEDS FOR FUNDING AND
LEGISLATION REQUIRED TO CONTROL THE SPREAD OF CWD AND TO ENSURE THAT
THE POTENTIAL FOR SPECIES CROSSOVER IS MINIMIZED.
I AM AWARE THAT THE DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE PRESENTLY MAINTAINS THE
RECORDS ON THE MOVEMENT OF ALTERNATIVE LIVESTOCK (CAPTIVE WILDLIFE),
AND THAT THEY ALSO HAVE OVERSIGHT ON ANIMAL PROCESSING PLANTS.
PROCESSING PLANTS PRESENT A SIGNIFICANT POTENTIAL SITE FOR SPECIES
CROSSOVER OF CWD TO HUMANS AND OTHER LIVESTOCK.
IT IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL THAT CWD AND OTHER TRANSMISSIBLE
ENCEPHALOPATHIES AND THE FACTORS RESTRICTING SPECIES CROSSOVER BE
CONDUCTED IN A COORDINATED PROCESS. I AM NOT SUGGESTING THAT RESEARCH
BE RESTRICTED, BUT THAT THE INFORMATION ON RESEARCH THAT IS BEING
CONDUCTED AND THE INFORMATION FROM THAT RESEARCH BE DIRECTED TO A
CENTRAL REPOSITORY.
BEFORE RESEARCH ON CWD, TSE's AND PRIONS CAN EVEN BE PUBLISHED; NEW
INFORMATION IS EMERGING. THE RAPIDLY CHANGING INFORMATION CLEARLY
INDICATES THAT WE CAN NO LONGER RELY ON THE OLD SAW ``THERE IS NO
EVIDENCE THAT'' TO DEFINE THE RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH TSE's. AS WAS BEST
STATED IN ONE PAPER I SAW, ``ABSENCE OF PROOF IS NOT PROOF OF
ABSENCE''.
ACCEPTABLE RISK LEVELS FOR ENDEMIC AREAS, TSE's AND PRIONS MUST BE
ESTABLISHED BASED ON THE MOST CURRENT AND BEST SCIENTIFIC INFORMATION
THAT CAN BE OBTAINED. RISK LEVELS MUST BE ESTABLISHED FOR PUBLIC
PROCESSING PLANTS THAT ACCEPT DEER AND ELK FROM THE WILD OR FROM
CAPTIVE WILDLIFE SOURCES. IF AN INDIVIDUAL MAKES A WELL INFORMED CHOICE
TO CONSUME DEER OR ELK FROM HUNTING OR FROM CAPTIVE WILDLIFE SOURCES
THAT IS A CHOICE. ALLOWING ANY POTENTIALLY INFECTED ANIMALS TO BE
PROCESSED IN A PUBLIC PROCESSING PLANT WHERE INDIVIDUALS UTILIZE THOSE
FACILITIES FROM OTHER SOURCES DOES NOT ALLOW THAT CHOICE. THAT RISK
MUST BE EVALUATED AND REASONABLE RESTRICTIONS CONSIDERED.
FEDERAL FUNDING AND LEGISLATION WILL BE ESSENTIAL TO THE
DEVELOPMENT OF ADEQUATE PROGRAMS TO ENSURE THAT PUBLIC HEALTH AND
LIVESTOCK PROTECTION WILL NOT BE JEOPARDIZED BY TSE's IN ANY FORM. THAT
MAY REQUIRE FUNDING FOR RESEARCH AND DEPOPULATION OF CAPTIVE OR WILD
ANIMALS.
CWD IS NOW A NATIONAL AND AN INTERNATIONAL ISSUE AND CANNOT BE
ADDRESSED BY INDIVIDUAL STATES. THE POTENTIAL THREAT TO HUMAN HEALTH
AND DEER AND ELK CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BECOME AN INIMBYY. IT'S NOT IN MY
BACK YARD YET!
THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON THIS ISSUE.
SINCERELY,
JERRY HART
7336 BEECH COURT
ARVADA, CO. 80005
303-420-5517
[email protected]
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Krut follows:]
May 10, 2002
Mr. Josh Penry
Majority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Forests & Forest Health
1337 Longworth House Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Mr. Penry:
In light of the Subcommittee's May 16 hearing on Chronic Wasting
Disease and efforts to deal with it, the American Association of Meat
Processors (AAMP) wishes to make several points concerning the issue.
AAMP represents approximately 1,700 meat processing firms and their
suppliers throughout the United States and Canada. The majority of
these businesses are small and very dependent on the processing of deer
and elk for their continued existence.
AAMP estimates that big game processing is a critical part of the
business in at least 50% of the 7,500 facilities operating under USDA
inspection or jurisdiction and nearly all of the 2,500 firms operating
under state meat inspection programs.
It is significant that many of these small meat processing
operations are also sustained in the non-hunting months by the custom
processing of cattle, swine, sheep, buffalo and ratites for the owners
of those animals, namely farmers and ranchers, for their own use. Large
packing houses do not accept these privately owned animals that are
slaughtered and processed as ``not for sale.'' Should these small
processing houses be closed, it could have a devastating impact on
small family farms and animal agriculture in general.
It is clear that these firms conduct game processing activities
from late August into the spring months, when sausage and other
specialty products are produced from elk or deer meat. If these seasons
were totally curtailed, they would be unable to keep employees, pay on
equipment, facilities and other overhead items. For most, their
facility is their retirement.
Funding for research into ways to prevent or eliminate the spread
of CWD is vital. Most plant operators realize that if unfounded and
unscientific scares about CWD being transmitted to humans become
rampant in the media, it could destroy their customer base. Even states
without positive CWD animals could suffer the consequences in a media-
generated panic.
Compounding the problem is the fact that many sportsmen go to other
states to hunt deer and elk and bring them back to their own states for
processing. Thus, a firm in a non-CWD state could also be hurt by this
disease.
A high percentage of hunters want specialty products, such as
sausage, snack sticks, bolognas, or jerky items made from their elk or
deer meat. Often the meat from several animals must be ground at the
same time, in a ``batching'' of raw materials. Otherwise, it would be
necessary to stop and do a complete cleanup of facilities and equipment
for every animal brought in, which would render the processing too
costly for consumers. Likewise, a large percentage of hunters are
unable to handle the cooling, processing and wrapping of their meats in
a safe manner, either through lack of skills or unavailability of
necessary facilities, including hot water, seasoning controls,
unawareness of other animal diseases, blast freezing chambers, proper
packaging and wraps, and lack of understanding about proper cooking and
curing temperatures and durations.
Offal disposal, including bones, trimmings, heads, spinal column
materials, is a nightmare for individuals. It is also a key problem for
small processors when an increasing number of rendering firms refuse to
collect this material, either through fear of CWD in the material or
the economics of picking up in rural locations.
Small game processing facilities are unable to obtain insurance to
cover ``loss of business'' for a disease like CWD, public fears of CWD,
or eradication efforts that eliminate wild or farmed deer and elk
herds. Carriers designate this as an ``act of God'' any either deny or
do not offer coverage.
AAMP members and those non-members who conduct game processing
operations do not have testing facilities. Few have excessive storage
capacity for game animals, meaning that they may not be able to hold
animals for hunters until test results for CWD are made known. In some
instances, they may not want to accept any animal without knowing where
it was taken or that it tested negative for CWD.
They are very concerned about hunters who drop off their animals
and refuse to pick them up without paying for processing costs,
materials, labor, seasonings, equipment use and wrapping. If one animal
arriving at a processing plant tests positive for CWD, they are fearful
that all animals brought to that plant could be abandoned by the
hunters. They are hoping for some indemnification for this loss if it
is caused by CWD scares.
These plant owners want to do the right thing and to cooperate with
scientific and government agencies. But they may need financial help if
the demands of prevent- ive or eradication efforts put them in a plant
closing mode. They may not know how long a restoration to normalcy will
take, or if things will every return to normal.
There are thousands of what our industry calls ``shade tree''
butchers who work out of garages, corn cribs, or in the open
environment. They often lack basic sanitation training, hot water,
adequate cooling and storage facilities, and curing know-how.
They often undercut legitimate processors in price since they have
no overhead, pay no taxes, and are not inspected. As a seasonal
enterprise, they often operate unknown to the authorities. If actions
to deal with CWD are too onerous for established processors and they
are forced to close, there will be little left except for these black
market operations. From a food safety standpoint, that is a option that
neither the Subcommittee nor other official agencies should exercise.
AAMP and its member deer and elk processors stand willing to meet
with the Subcommittee or other government agencies to further explain
their concerns and work toward positive and effective solutions. If
additional hearings are scheduled, we hope you would find time to hear
the personal concerns of those in this important part of our hunting
infrastructure.
Thank you for your consideration and best wishes in your
deliberations.
Steve Krut
Executive Director
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Lundquist
follows:]
May 13, 2002
Josh Penry
Majority Staff Director
Subcommittee on Forests and Forest Health
House Committee on Resources
1337 LHOB
Washington, DC 20515
Reference: Federal Government Involvement in Chronic Wasting Disease
Dear Mr. Penry:
We believe that the key to controlling and eventually eliminating
Chronic Wasting Disease is to stop transmission of the disease. We
understand that the disease is transmitted through animal-to-animal
contact and ingesting CWD contaminated food, etc. The expansion of CWD
outside of the endemic area in Colorado and Wyoming appear to have
resulted from infected captive animals transmitting the disease to the
wild animals.
Based on this understanding, we recommend that the containment and
elimination of CWD will require concerted efforts on these fronts:
LLStopping the 35-year expansion of the epidemic area in
Colorado and Wyoming;
LLStopping expansion of recently infected areas in
Wisconsin, and Craig, Colorado
LLStopping infection of wild herds of deer and elk
resulting from infected captive animals and contaminated lands.
The only method to eliminate the disease we know of, is to
aggressively eliminate all infected animals along with large numbers of
healthy animals.
To stop the spread of the disease, government agencies have to
seriously look into containment. In Colorado, we believe that game
ranches that have been infected and abandoned need to be double-fenced
and the fences need to be maintained for the foreseeable future. The
west side of Rocky Mountains National Park needs to be double-fenced
this summer with the balance of the park double-fenced as soon as
possible (based on the assumptions that the National Parks will not
aggressively eliminate the deer and elk herds in the Rocky Mountain
National Park). Finally, so far all CWD infected wild animals are north
of I-70. Highway I-70 forms an effective barrier to migration of deer
and elk in some parts of the state. We believe that with additional
fencing, I-70 can become an effective barrier, stopping migration in
all parts of the State.
Recently in Colorado efforts have been directed towards opening up
migration corridors. We feel that these efforts in Colorado and other
states may be counter-productive with respect to the control of CWD.
The best defense to CWD is a herd isolated from other herds which may
become infected. To stop the spread of CWD, herds need to be separated
and isolated where practical.
In addition to the foregoing, we have specified recommendations for
Federal Government involvement as listed below:
LLDevelop and implement containment policies as addressed
above and provide funding.
LLEstablish a protocol for dealing with Chronic Wasting
Disease, i.e. Wyoming is doing nothing, Colorado is removing 25% of the
herd in 5 years, and Wisconsin is aggressively eliminating 15,000 deer.
LLDevelop policies for national parks, including
containment and elimination. In Colorado, the west borders of Rocky
Mountain National Park need to be fenced as soon as possible before the
Summer migration.
LLCoordinate and fund research.
LLProvide funding for game elimination and containment in
the form of grants to the States affected.
LLProvide assistance to increase testing laboratory
capacity and the development of field tests for hunters.
LLGame farms and shooting ranches need to be regulated on
an intrastate basis. Colorado's controls established by the Department
of Agriculture appear good. However, risk is so high that game farms
may need to be eliminated or required to maintain large bonds of $10
million or more.
LLCentralize and coordinate all Federal resources within
one agency.
We would appreciate your consideration of these recommendations,
and wish that we could have made this presentation in person.
Sincerely,
COLORADO SPORTSMEN S COALITION
Ronald Lundquist
President
______
[A statement submitted for the record by Mr. Southwick
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79658.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79658.007
[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Schad follows:]
Attention: Sub-committee on Forests and Forest Health
RE: Written Congressional Hearing Testimony: Chronic Wasting Disease
(CWD)
Hearing date 5/16/2002
Dear Sirs and Madams:
As President of the Ohio Association of Meat Processors and
Director at Large for the American Association of Meat Processors, I
provide the following for your consideration:
If CWD strikes, this would have a potentially devastating effect on
processing plants in Ohio and nationwide.
In Ohio, more than 50 % of our plants could be effected.
In Ohio, some plants are dependent on game season with some 30+% of
annual income coming from game processing.
Some plants may well not survive if a high incidence of CWD were to
be found in Ohio.
Over the past three months, I have attended State Meat Processors
Conventions in Illinois, Missouri, Wisconsin, Ohio and Nebraska. As CWD
information has emerged, meat processors becoming aware of it--the best
attended education/informational sessions (standing room only) were
those sessions that were addressing CWD. I cannot state strongly
enough, the devastating impact CWD could have, IF
Misinformation is out there, the media reports it causing over
reaction and public hysteria
Game population are infected due to slow identification of infected
population Testing time (per head) is not minimized, so the plant and
hunter will be aware in a timely manner
Disposal of infected head (offal and bones) is not such that
processors can be fiscally and environmentally responsible. It is my
understanding that currently the only means of disposal is in
registered landfills.
It is my understanding that Ohio will begin testing this year; I
hope it is soon enough. However, the Ohio Association of Meat
Processors (OAMP) will work with the Ohio Department of Agriculture
(ODA) to try to insure that if incidents are found, they are reported
accurately, taken within the context of the total testing and that a
plan is in place to minimize the impact. In addition, we are currently
working with Dr. Glauer of Animal Industries, ODA, to support
alternative ways of infected carcass disposal. OAMP is committed to
working with ODA to look for ways that both satisfy governmental and
industry needs. Your committee, also, needs to work with and support
State Agencies.
I encourage your committee to consider representation from the
industry, specifically, the American Association of Meat Processors
(AAMP represents small to mid size plants and state associations are
their affiliates. )
In addition, please consider that identification is only part of
the problem. Funding for research is essential--identification,
solution proposals made and both strategic and tactical plans need to
be developed and implemented. Our industry needs to be included as a
vital part of wildlife management--both our survivals depend on it.
Respectfully submitted,
MARK P. SCHAD
President, Ohio Association of Meat Processors
Director at Large, American Association of Meat Processors
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Steele follows:]
May 14, 2002
The Honorable Scott McInnis
The United States House of Representatives
215 Cannon House Office Bldg.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Dear Representative McInnis,
Please enter the following comments into the record for the
congressional hearing on funding for Chronic Wasting Disease.
Much of wildlife management for all species in the United States
has been funded by deer license sales. The same sportsmen who purchased
these licenses have supported local economies in many rural areas.
Now Chronic Wasting Disease threatens all this. Modeling studies by
the Colorado Division of Wildlife and Colorado State University
indicate that if CWD is not controlled our deer herds will no longer
exist 100 years from now. In the near future CWD threatens license
sales ergo wildlife management funding. Hunters will not buy licenses
if they perceive the meat is not safe to consume. Would you feed
venison to your children or grandchildren from the endemic area of
Colorado or Wyoming even if it tested negative for CWD?
First and foremost eradication of CWD must be the objective of any
funding or research. Control efforts in Colorado over the last 35 years
have failed miserably. Failures on a nationwide level will leave us
with no deer in the United States.
The chances of CWD moving from a maximum of 3000 infected deer and
300 infected elk harvested over the last 35 years is infinitesimal
compared to the current one case of nvCJD in humans per 500,000 exposed
to BSE (mad cow disease). If CWD does jump the species barrier as BSE
did it will have much more dire consequences. BSE was transmitted cow
to cow by feeding infected meat and bone meal. NvCJD could be
transmitted person to person only by contaminated surgical instruments,
blood transfusions and theoretically by cannibalism. CWD is spread deer
to deer through saliva, urine, and fecal matter. If CWD does jump the
species barrier it could then transmit by the same routes just as the
common cold or salmonella among humans. In test tube studies the
species barrier to humans is no stronger for CWD than BSE.
Research on a disease that develops this slowly will take years. In
the meantime containment and control will be critical. Funding to
Wildlife Services to aid states in eradication efforts is needed.
Funding for double fencing of infected game farms is being born by
sportsmen currently. We are not responsible for the mess they created
and should not have to clean it up. Federal dollars would be more
appropriate for environmental control of CWD on these farms. Double
fencing will be required for 5 to 50 years depending on research into
environmental persistence. Double fencing is necessary to prevent wild
deer from entering and leaving contaminated premises through holes in
fencing, over snowdrifts, and over fallen trees.
The second objective for funding needs to be research on CWD. This
would best be approached on all levels from state wildlife agencies,
state universities, to Federal laboratories.
Areas of critical importance are:
1. LHow CWD is transmitted.
2. LHow long CWD persists in the environment.
3. LTreatments for CWD.
4. LThe potential for crossing the species barrier.
Sportsmen have generated tax revenues for scores of years and asked
for little in return. Tax revenues on sporting goods, ATV's, trucks,
and recreational vehicles total many millions. Now we are asking for
your assistance in dealing with Chronic Wasting Disease.
Dick Steele DVM
President, Colorado Sportsmen's Wildlife Fund
President, Western Colorado Sportsmen's Council
687 2300 Drive
Delta, CO 81416
(970)234-8041
______
[A letter submitted for the record by Mr. Young follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79658.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] 79658.009
-