CWD Advisory Committee Report

The Science of CWD:
A Chronology of Literature
on Chronic Wasting Disease

by Anthony Grabski, Ph.D.

Report on the Wisconsin DNR CWD Advisory Committee.

This group was organized in the summer of 2007 as a means to engage what the DNR considers major stakeholder groups in their battle against Chronic Wasting Disease. At this writing there have been four meetings of the group. Substantial portions of each meeting involved presentations by DNR selected "authorities" of key concepts of indoctrination the agency felt were necessary in order for the group to effectively perform its mission. Information about the group can be found on the DNR website at: http://dnr.wi.gov/org/land/wildlife/whealth/issues/CWD/advisory.htm

Member Reports
I've talked to a few members on the committee, reviewed minutes and documentation from their meetings, and browsed the DNR website. Here are links to two committee documents that will give you a sense of the variety of opinions being formed by committee members and a feel for what may be sticking points in their coming to a consensus on recommendations:

What are the likely long term effects of CWD to Wisconsin?

Is CWD a disease that can be eradicated and/or contained in southern Wisconsin?

There is one vocal member of the committee who remains wedded to the original theory propagated by the DNR during their public orientation sessions when the disease was first discovered. Basically this thesis is that the disease is deadly, has no known cure, readily spreads from animal to animal, will spread even in populations of very low density (see Schauber & Wolf article on density dependence), and therefore if unchecked will spread throughout the state. Thus every attempt must be made to exterminate every member of the infected population for even a few surviving members could re-infect and spread the disease. Since we don't know which deer are infected and which are not, this mandate requires killing every deer in the region of known disease. Additionally since the suspected agent of transmission - misfolded prions - are known to survive in the soil and are highly resistant to degradation, the region of known infection must be kept deer free for several years to prevent resident deer from getting re-infected and thus enabling a new outbreak and spread.

This was the scenario and bitter pill solution the DNR advocated in 2002. They supplemented this with a multi-media model that showed should we not eradicate the disease in south central Wisconsin, it will inevitably spread throughout the state, killing the deer herd and producing many millions, perhaps billions, of dollars of economic damage.

Well anyone who has followed the Wisconsin effort knows the effort to eradicate the deer and the disease hosts were a total failure. While the goal was to bring the population down to as close to zero as possible, the result has been that the population remains as large as it ever was. The extraordinary methods employed to achieve dramatic population reduction achieved no better results than the previously used methods to manage the deer population (see deer harvest data article ). Making matters worse, testing subsequent to 2002 revealed that the geographic size of the area of known infection is much larger than originally thought. Deer with malformed CWD prions have been discovered essentially across the entire southern tier of Wisconsin (and Northern Illinois to boot).

The New Model
Recognizing these failures and the reality of the extent of geographic dispersal of deer with CWD prions, the DNR has steadily distanced itself from its original theory. They now believe (or hope) that the disease is density dependent and thus if the deer population in the regions of infectivity are materially reduced, the incidence of the disease will reduce and the chances of it spreading to new regions will be significantly reduced as well. And their hope is that if the population gets thinned enough and stays that way, the disease will naturally extinguish itself and thus eradication will be achieved. This is the "new CWD management model" the agency is promoting these days and the one they hope the CWD Stakeholder Advisory Committee can help them implement.

While this new scenario doesn't involve the kind of Pie-in-the-Sky dreams inherent in their original 2002 scheme, given the track record of facts of previous efforts at deer population management in the CWD zones, the new approach is still up there in the clouds. After spending over 32 million dollars on an aggressive management program, there has been absolutely no progress in reducing the deer population in the zone of known disease.

How the committee is aligned vis-a-vis this new Model
Despite the discouraging lack of success and the DNR reversing its field , committee member Tom Givnish remains convinced the original model is accurate, the original doom and gloom forecast is on the money, and a Herculean effort requiring many more millions of dollars and dramatic time-of-war measures must be invested to achieve the original goal. My sources tell me Givnish (a University Professor) is out in left field all by himself with no one, not even the DNR, agreeing with his conclusions and solutions.

In the middle and closer to the DNR's desired solutions are committee members from Northern Wisconsin regions who fear that the disease and all its attendant social-political baggage could spread (or be discovered) in their part of the state. They want to make sure it is "contained" to Southern Wisconsin. Given this motivation, and ignoring the fact that the best deer management minds in the DNR were unable to implement a program to reduce the population or contain the disease, these citizen laymen from up north are willing to entertain notions that they can create a winning game plan.

Opposite Givnish are a group of hunter-landowners who reside in the CWD areas. As landowner/residents in the target zone, these people have had a close-up, on-the-field view of the 5 years of attempted CWD management. Interestingly this group also includes a University Professor (Geography - retired) intimately familiar with population demographics and statistics and a Ph.D. biotech scientist with prion biology experience. Both of these individuals are also life-long deer hunters who are concerned both about the disease and the impact of how it is managed on the sport of deer hunting. So neither these two nor other committee members who agree with their positions are advocates of "do nothing." On the other hand, they are also aware through 5 years of experience with the DNR's attempts at CWD management of the wisdom of the Hippocratic Oath to "do no harm." The result is their recommended solutions are not radical. They give equal weight to combating CWD and restoring the reputation and ethics of the sport of hunting. Knowing their neighbors and living in the zone, they are sensitive to practical, workable solutions.

Possible Recommendations
Whether the committee will come together on a set of recommendations remains to be seen. Givnish will tend to pull negotiations towards the DNR desired end. The CWD area landowners, having made what they consider a reasonable, workable plan will resist movement towards the DNR-Northern Region perspective. Strategically the CWD Landowner group probably should have advocated a more radical "do nothing" type of solution so that they could compromise to a more reasonable position via their negotiations with other committee members. But if the CWD Landowner recommendations prevail, here is what the new rules recommendations might look like:

1. The hunting rules/regs for the CWD area should to the extent possible be the same as other areas in the state. Creating a distinct set of rules for the CWD zone stigmatizes the region and discourages hunting in the zone.

2. The rules should remain in effect for 5 years since constant rule revision and change confuses and discourages the more casual deer hunter from engaging in the sport.

3. The season shall be identical to other high population management zones elsewhere in the state, with an additional antler-less holiday hunt between Christmas and New Years. This same holiday hunt should also be considered in non-CWD regions where it is important to achieve significant deer population reductions.

4. Additional no charge tags will be available to hunters, using some sort of system to encourage the harvest of does yet also not discourage continued hunting in the hope of harvesting a buck.

5. Voluntary CWD Testing should be available free or at a reasonable cost (not to exceed $15) and results returned within two weeks. Testing for research should not be allowed to delay the prompt processing of voluntary testing results.

6. The distinction between the two kinds of CWD zones should be eliminated. If a new program is successful in materially reducing the deer population it ought to be implemented across the entire zone, not just in what is considered the core zone. Known facts about deer migration, the evidence of the year by year geographic enlargement of areas of known CWD presence, and the paucity of knowledge in how to treat or contain the disease argues for a management zone much larger than simply within 4 miles of a CWD positive discovered in previous years. This was the one area of its original plan where the DNR was quite conservative and it is proving to be a mistake since new cases are discovered every year that are more distant from the presumed core of infection.

7. Research on CWD should continue but be detached from the DNR so it can focus more on basic research into the causes and the nature of how CWD is transmitted. There is no need to consume scarce research dollars testing every deer harvested within the zone; sampling methods can obtain reliable estimates of disease prevalence.

Comment on Above Recommendations
While I find the above recommendations reasonable, an element they don't address is the DNR's continued insistence on having eradication of the disease as its goal. Given what little is known about the disease and what is known about our attempts to manage populations with the disease, eradication is an unrealistic, unachievable goal for the agency. (Now for basic science or veterinary science, eradication is a worthwhile goal. Here endeavoring to push the envelope with lofty goals is appropriate) But until the body of knowledge about CWD dramatically expands and some breakthroughs occur, a deer management agency must operate in the *real world* of what is possible with current tools and knowledge.

As long as the DNR continues to operate under the eradication delusion, it will alter its management programs in subtle ways that will hamper its ability to contain the disease and effectively manage disease populations.

Basically until more is known about CWD at the scientific and communicable level, the DNR's program for CWD management should essentially be the same aggressive population management strategy it would employ for a Deer Management Zone whose deer population requires a most significant reduction. If the DNR discovers a workable tool/program that works in that grossly overpopulated deer region why wouldn't you use the same system in an area of CWD infection? In both cases, you are using your most powerful, yet realistic means. If it won't work in the grossly overpopulated deer region for practical, social, political, economic, psychological, or whatever reasons . . . then it ain't gonna work in the CWD areas for the same reasons. Five years of experience prove this.

--Ross Reinhold, November 9, 2007

15 year Harvest Data in Unit 70A measure effectiveness of CWD Management Plan (published April 1, 2004)