House Agriculture & Livestock and House Culture, Recreation & Tourism met in a joint hearing on September 29 to hear from the Texas Parks and Wildlife Department, the Texas Animal Health Commission, industry stakeholders, and Texas A&M concerning Chronic Wasting Disease in cervid populations and testing for the condition.

This report is intended to give you an overview and highlight of the discussions on the various topics taken up. It is not a verbatim transcript of the discussions but is based upon what was audible or understandable to the observer and the desire to get details out as quickly as possible with few errors or omissions.

Panel 1 – Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Chair Arch Aplin, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

  • We look forward to hearing from the scientists, stakeholders, etc.
  • Have had conversations
  • Not saying the sky is falling, though have gone from 1 to 260 in a short period of time and don’t want to end up like other states with more serious issues
  • Eager to have the conversation, CWD issue has my undivided attention
  • Bailes – Thanks Aplin for his work on TPWD, has always been responsive
  • Frullo – How do you resolve rules issues between TPWD and Texas Animal Health Commission (TAHC) so people aren’t following two different sets of requirements?
    • Work well with TAHC, committed to doing better at having same processes and rules to govern by

Carter Smith, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

  • Proposed rules will be submitted to the Executive Director in November
  • Provides overview of TPWD operations; deer are a large portion of the wildlife economy, owned by the people of the state
  • Movement of live deer has risk associated with it, number of permits attached & state has accepted some part of this risk
  • Important to maintain stakeholder confidence in management of deer in state
  • Challenge now is how do we keep it from spreading in the state
  • Gervin-Hawkins – Are you seeing pushback as we try to remedy this?
    • Smith, TPWD – Sure, part of the process, a lot of passion and emotion surrounding deer and deer management
    • Have pushback that
  • Gervin-Hawkins – Common sense to want to mitigate it, the concern is the approach?
    • Have come further since 2012, have gone past notions that it is a political disease and people are taking it seriously; goes to questions of risk management and risk tolerance
    • TPWD needs to look at the totality of the 6 million deer across the state and the stakeholders
  • Gervin-Hawkins – How can TPWD create categories and targeted solutions? Do you have the proper tools?
    • Certainly not using just one approach, look at the entirety of the deer range
    • Have different testing regimes and surveillance depending on level of risk, different strategies for free-range or more captive settings
  • Bailes – Three questions: 1) What is our plan if detected? Have yet to see that 2) value of a test post-release & 3) regarding carcasses, don’t have a great understanding of spread, we know it’s spread through tissues & doing little to regulate the 800k harvested
    • Once we detect a deer with CWD, sent to Ames, Iowa in the National testing Lab to confirm; work to put containment & surveillance zones into place; draw maps and boundaries
    • Within those zones there are severe prescriptions about mandatory hunting testing; work with affected landowners, local & state officials
    • When we find CWD in a breeder facility, requires another level of action in conjunction with TAHC; epidemiological process to trace contact and exposure; those potentially exposed are made “not movement qualified” until procedures are followed
    • Texas is the only state with built in antemortem testing, however, probably not enough to clear a deer with exposure; these have a lot of value, but not perfect
    • Regarding carcasses, definitely worried about the 800k; if we know about CWD in a free-range environment, then hunters are required to test the carcass
    • Have a sampling program in place that works with Deer Management Units (DMU), look at relative risk by area and put in place a statistically based sampling scheme

Mitch Lockwood, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department Big Game Program

  • Provides history of CWD in the state and hunting in the state; deer breeders and hunters depend on healthy deer as a resource
  • CWD is an insidious disease with little population impact in the early stages, unlike Anthrax and EHD, CWD will not go dormant and will constantly act on the population & lead to obvious population impacts
  • One study showed CWD is a significant mortality factor itself & also makes deer more vulnerable to other mortality factors; considering this, likely the top mortality factor
  • Wisconsin study showed that undetected CWD is likely 2-3x the detected rate
  • Long-term population impact of CWD is more than any other conditions
  • CWD prevalence in the population leads hunters to avoid certain areas and can be devasting to communities
  • Surveilled deer for CWD until state saw the first captive case in Medina County, breeding facility provided deer to numerous locations around the state, >800 deer to roughly 150 sites around the state & Mexico
  • CWD was then detected in 4 additional deer breeding facilities; system then made disease transmission within and without facilities very efficient, realized we needed to intensify surveillance efforts
  • Provides overview of DMU surveillance and testing; 10k/DMU, met or exceed these goals each year since 2015, hired additional personnel in 2019 and scaled up efforts
  • 20% of samples come from roadkill, 80% from hunter harvested deer; 27% of hunter harvested samples come voluntarily from MLDP facilities, but MLDP facilities are only 21%; getting a high proportion of samples from cooperators & will continue to utilize this resource
  • Have heard sampling strategy is not adequate to detect this disease, especially since breeders test a much higher portion of moralities compared to hunter harvested deer
  • Two reasons to test for CWD, 1) general surveillance and 2) provide confidence we’re not moving CWD positive deer from one location to another & contributing to transmission
  • Number 2 requires significantly more surveillance
  • Provides table highlighting what would be needed to detect with 99% confidence; scales with herd size, e.g. 5% prevalence in herd of 20 deer would need 100% of deer tested, 89 samples in herd size of 5k
  • Information suggests that CWD has resulted from movement of live deer in parts of the state
  • Provides overview of post-detection process; when detected, TPWD establishes CWD zones to establish prevalence and spread, rules for hunters are the same for surveillance and containment zones incl. mandatory testing and carcass testing, TPWD establishes check stations
  • Through recent stakeholder meetings have heard feedback that rules in 2016 worked and were sufficient; rules did work to detect CWD, but not before disease had festered in some facilities for a year or more
  • Rules that work would not allow for 270 trace-out facilities to be potentially infected before the disease is detected; rules often allowed for movement of infected deer, emergency order stopped movement from tier 1 facilities, increased testing requirements
  • When deer are transferred to breeding facilities, easily accessible for CWD testing, but deer released to pasture are often released without tags, makes it difficult to detect and track
  • Roughly 1/3rd of herds are released on an annual basis, so these herds are not part of tracing program
  • Sheep handlers effectively bred scrapie out of herds through tier systems, etc.; not possible with white tail deer under the current system
  • Recognize the limits of antemortem testing, cannot be used to clear individual deer, especially those that have been exposed; testing before liberation does minimize risk
  • Emergency rules have a lifespan of 120 days, can be extended for another 60 days; have a narrow timeframe to establish lasting safeguards
  • Sept. 15 comprehensive rules were authorized to be published, will take action on Nov. 4
  • Overview of amendments:
    • Both obex brainstem and medial retropharyngeal lymph node (MRPLN) tissue submission for diagnostics
    • Shorten timeframe to submit samples from 14 days to 7 days
    • Increase minimum testing req. from 3.6% to 5% in live population, post-mortem testing from 80% to 100%
    • Decrease test eligible age to 12 months and older
  • Each of these would lead to more surveillance and would be consistent with TAHC
  • Most controversial part of emergency rules was live test requirement before release, proposing to maintain this requirement
  • Proposing moving testing ratio from 3 to 1 to 5 to 1
  • Trap, Transport & Transplant program carries risk of CWD transmission with it, current reqs are probably inadequate to provide confidence we aren’t transmitting CWD; proposing to suspend TTT program and evaluate how to bring it back with increased confidence
  • Proposing to change sex determination rules, currently required to maintain head to final destination & want to change to allow other means of determination so heads do not need to be transported
  • Have heard concerns of breeders being unfairly targeted after CWD findings, unfortunate situation
  • Don’t believe CWD is due to bad actors, but rather not having appropriate safeguards in place to prevent spread; imperative to develop appropriate monitoring rules
  • Bailes – To my understanding, the 4 facilities that were an issue were part of certified herds through TAHC?
    • 5 out of 6 facilities were enrolled
  • Bailes – Those rules were a 14 day reporting period & mirrored off of 7 day USDA, which should have been in place in the state
  • Bailes – One of the breeders was banking tests and submitting on an annual basis even though he was under certified herd status through TAHC; goes back to whether we were doing what we were supposed to, whether we were holding to 14 days
  • Bailes – Issue of breeders not doing the right thing is very small, only 3% were not complying; rules were very effective and didn’t have time to work before emergency ruling; there was a lot of due diligence, but we didn’t give rule the opportunity to work and weren’t enforcing rules we had
    • Lockwood, TPWD – Had 7-day rule been in effect, there is a good chance we would only be talking about 5 CWD positive facilities instead of 7, but would still be having this conversation today
    • With Duvall County, individual was planning to release bucks for hunting and does; doe in question was 3 and possibly wouldn’t have been released, but he only needed 12 antemortem tests to follow requirements for substitution and he took twice as many
    • Breeders tend to choose younger does, but needing to test more requires you to dip deeper into the herd; new rule almost certainly led to that detection
    • Dr. Andy Schwartz, Texas Animal Health Commission – Field personnel were looking at rules and submission, rules in place possibly saved 2 herds from infection
  • Frullo – 13k tests in 2019, 12k likely due to emergency procedures; within those 12k, those were deer breeding?
    • Those are strictly from roadkill and hunter harvesting, doesn’t include deer breeding facility samples for movement qualified status, doesn’t include TTT
  • Frullo – So in total, there are around 25k to be tested in this next year; in 2020, how many positive tests did you find?
    • To date, 261 samples, large proportion are from those breeding facilities like Medina County
  • Frullo – Deer tend to be pretty fragile, any analysis of how many of the 12k deer died after being subjected to testing? These are the high-dollar deer people are typically coming for and significant impact if breeders lose those animals
    • Deer certainly experience mortality when they’re handled, could result from anesthetization or stress, antemortem testing contributes
    • Looked at testing data to try and ascertain this, looked at those with mortalities within 30 days of test; death rate was a little more than 2% in August, which was consistent with untested deer
    • Can’t know how many were a result of testing, certainly some were, but consistent with untested
  • Frullo – Asks after specific instance of CWD positive case
    • Responding to homeowner report of deer exhibiting CWD symptoms, tested after death
    • Not impossible for deer to come from Northwest Panhandle where we have CWD, also possible we had prions introduced to the area via humans through improper disposal or spontaneous occurrence
  • Frullo – You said one test is more valuable than the other between postmortem and antemortem
    • Test sensitivity is greatest when using MRPLN over obex, more likely to miss a positive with an antemortem test, certainly MRPLN is more effective
  • Frullo – Asks after deer that tested negative antemortem and posive4 postmortem
    • 3-4 months is a very rapid period for contracting the disease to testing positive, could be that it wasn’t progressed enough to test positive for antemortem testing versus postmortem
    • With the deer that died of natural causes, if it is in a facility it is more likely to test positive; 5 to 1 is more justified than 3 to 1 based on USDA guidance
  • Israel – You showed us the map on where problems are, New Mexico gave us the heads up on Franklin Mountains situation, what are our communication protocols with surrounding states?
    • Don’t have formalized protocols, do have very good communication with New Mexico, less so with Louisiana and Oklahoma
    • Oklahoma doesn’t have a very active surveillance protocol, Louisiana a little more so
  • Israel – Disease is spreading due to need for better rules, not seeing much urgency to adopt rules in line with TAHC; when will we adopt those rules, didn’t see a timeline?
    • Became clear in June that we were dealing with a much more serious situation, filed emergency order in June 22 & have been working with stakeholders on bolstered rules due to limited time frame for emergency order
    • Authorized publishing on Sept. 15, expecting publishment in October and action on rules Nov. 4
  • Cole – What would education outreach on proper disposal look like?
    • Don’t know that improper disposal is leading to significant spread, do have one case
    • Communications Director is developing a plan right now, would be news releases, social media, etc.
  • K King – Do we know how many deer have died of CWD?
    • Do not know the answer to that
  • K King – If an animal does have CWD, is it transmittable through meat to human consumption?
    • No evidence of that
  • K King – I keep hearing that CWD may not be CWD, but could be scrapies & we’re not testing for this, why is that?
    • Samples from thousands of deer around the state, each sample has western blot for scrapie run and have not yet observed scrapie, though most of what has been done so far is free range
  • K King – How many MLDP permit holders do we have?
    • 12k-13k
  • K King – 27% of the volunteered data, how many acres does this cover, more in some regions?
    • Approaching 30 million acres, certainly will have more in Central and South Texas
  • K King – Are MLDP holders permitted to trap live deer?
    • Not through he MLDP
  • K King – Other ways they can get this permit, when they do trap them are the transporting and breeding ever?
    • No, could be done through a DMP
  • K King – There are cases where people who aren’t breeders are trapping, breeding, and releasing?
    • Yes, through DMP
  • K King – Regarding pen-raised deer, movement of deer creates larger spread risk, breeders need a permit to do this, but many containment zones are in free range areas
  • K King – Mexico & New Mexico aren’t doing much to control spread, so problem is with free range deer, but who pays for the free range? Seems like breeders are bearing a cost for their deer and state is bearing cost for free range
  • K King – Seems like we have a bigger problem with free range over deer in facilities, but we’re charging for movement, etc.
    • Not sure I understand the question, rules have testing requirements for hunters
    • We do not permit movement of live deer from those zones, some movement under the 2016 rules within the zones
    • There are carcass movement restrictions
    • Certainly free ranging deer will move on their own, TPWD is taking action to surveil and properly delineate zones
  • K King – Asks after elk
    • Don’t have authority over non-native animals, legally exotic livestock
  • K King – Why do you not use the word negative for tests? Certainly will use positive, why can’t we clear facilities with a “negative”
    • Good question, sensitivity of test types varies, risk of missing positive animal pertains to antemortem and postmortem; obex test sensitivity is about 70%, MRPLN is not 100%
    • Not saying animal will eventually test positive
  • K King – Will we end up with a deer herd that are like pen-raised quail, pseudo domesticated?
    • CWD practices have been utilized for decades, certainly nothing in the rules that would contribute to that
    • Husbandry practices lead to some wilder populations than others
  • K King You don’t think extra testing will contribute to changes in deer behavior?
    • No
  • Gervin-Hawkins – You destroy deer that test positive?
    • When we detect positives, facilities are depopulated; tried other methods with herd management
  • Gervin-Hawkins – Destroying entire herd?
    • With captive herds, typically yes
  • Gervin-Hawkins – That can be thousands
    • Not with a facility, but could be hundreds

Dr. Andy Schwartz, Texas Animal Health Commission

  • To clarify exotic species, TPWD is responsible for native wildlife, TAHC is responsible for CWD-prone exotic cervids
  • Provides overview of CWD, transmissible spongiform encephalopathy, resistant to disinfection, can be spread be various species
  • Can be spread by movement of infected animals, carcass transport, etc.; normal autoclave temperatures do not deactivate prions, prions have been detected in reproductive tissue
  • Provides written material on positive facilities, 2 of the infected herds have been depopulated, USDA maintains small amounts of funding for depopulation and used to help offset breeder costs
  • Provides overview of 7 facilities with positives; mostly trace outs from one facility, even without other positive, trace animals entering facilities expose other deer, contaminate soil, etc.,
  • Disease has a long lead period and could be several years before we know which other animals are positive; soil is scraped, burned, bleached
  • Have theories on which of the facilities was index case for CWD among these 7
  • Burns – Facilities 4 and 5 were depopulated, each animal was tested?
    • Yes, did not find positive tests
  • Burns – What about those that were removed from those facilities?
    • Those were positive, once we found those we moved forward with remainder of the herd
    • No positives in the herd tells us they weren’t infected or were incubating, 16 months post exposure wasn’t really long enough to have positive tests
  • Burns – Asks after traceability
    • Within pens, traceability is excellent
  • Within facilities, approach has been to test all mortalities, hole in testing were those released to hunting sites, some have released up to 30% so antemortem testing definitely helps with surveillance
  • Antemortem testing is less sensitive, infected animals shedding prions means failure to contain & herd plans reflect this
  • Look at 60 months post exposure based on USDA standards for interstate movement of deer
  • TAHC believes there are some deer that can incubate longer than 30 months
  • No cure for the disease, no vaccine, resistant to disinfection; most animal health diseases are bacterial or viral with genetic components, prions are protein misfolding issues which make them resistant
  • Have 318 trace facilities that contributed to a sportive facility or had deer in a positive facility
  • In the herd certification program, reqs enrollment of deer, inventory must be verified annually, herd inspected every 3 years; graduated program year over year through year 5, considered certified in year 6
  • Containment and surveillance zones are aligned closely with TPWD
  • Rules changes:
    • Changed definition of comingling to include animals of any age to clarify fawn status
    • Fence height established at 8 ft, grandfather for facilities with shorter fences that prevent ingress and egress
    • 7 day sample submission time
    • New movements restriction zones were adopted
    • Penalty assessments were reviewed, for certified herds status can be lowered or herd can be removed
  • Elk and red deer have reqs to move within the state and movement interstate, assess herd of origin each time for interstate transfer of exotic species, roughly 70/year
  • Require negative sample for harvested exotics in CWD zones, don’t allow release of CWD-susceptible exotic species within these zones, herd plans are established for positive facilities in those zones
  • Burns – Is there a certain part of the carcass that may be more likely to transmit disease?
    • Brain and spinal cord have most prions, can be in muscle tissue and other areas as well
  • K King – Asks after 60 month herd plan & USDA reqs
    • Have rules for interstate movement of cervids as well, based on USDA
  • K King – So deer breeders in neighboring states are pursuing the 60 month plan?
    • If they are pursuing positives; Oklahoma doesn’t have an active surveillance program
  • K King – No interstate commerce; moving into the state; they can move out?
    • Cannot legally move white tail into the state, but can move out
  • Cyrier and Schwartz discuss the testing and removal program; moved to a depopulation approach rather than testing and removal
  • Cyrier – 100% live testing before release?
    • Yes, increases surveillance; valuable to the heard certification program

Panel 2 – Texas Deer Association & Deer Breeders

John True, President Texas Deer Association

  • Deer breeders were handed three pages of new rules in March
  • New; 14 day limit to turn in a CWD sample after a deer has died
    • Could hold it up to a year previously
  • 3 separate CWD instances this year; one at facilities one and two
    • Legally banked samples for a year
  • Two farms, one in Duval County, received infected animals a month and a half after an animal died
  • New rules are working; no deer in trailers caused us to find this disease
  • Since 2012 population sizes in the most CWD infected places in the state have not seen a decrease in population
  • 30 months is as long an animal will live if it has CWD; 60 month trace out testing is outdated
  • Deer breeders are the only ones mandated to test; hopes other entities will be mandated to test as well
  • Has been concern failed predictive models; tripling annual surveillance testing
  • Frullo – All testing has been by breeders?
    • Yes, ended up shy of 12,000 tests as a result of the June emergency rules
  • Frullo – Tests free? What is the cost?
    • Cost on average is $300 a head; industry spent a considerable amount
  • Frullo – Were zero positive tests found in that?
    • Yes; was a blind roll of the dice for industry
  • Frullo – Which are released?
    • Vast majority are bucks
  •  Frullo – 2% pass during the testing process?
    • Not sure how to quantify that; do not disagree with that number
  • Israel – $300 a test; where do those costs end up hitting?
    • To the client purchasing the animals; if the cost is not passed on, is the breeder
  • Cyrier – Have 6 months to do live testing before transport?
    • Would be better to have 12 months; 8 months would be better also
  • K King – “Not detected” holds value for only one day?
    • Correct, holds no value; bigger problem is the trace out period
  • K King – In total, how many pen raised deer have been depopulated?
    • Have an open records request on that
  • Gervin-Hawkins – What works versus what did not?
    • What happened at facilities one and two will not happen again due to these new rules
  • Gervin-Hawkins – Are mainly concerned about the timelines?
    • Are fine with additional annual surveillance
    • Only issue is the ante-mortem testing prior to release

Kevin Davis, Deer Breeders Corporation

  • Agree with the issue of ante-mortem testing prior to release
  • Support all other new rules
  • Ante-mortem testing was never designed to clear a single animal prior to movement
  • TPWD and TAHC staff have a lack of confidence in trace animal testing, highlights one animal that was rectal and tonsil tested with “not detected,” but was still destroyed
  • Need to have more confidence in the live tests
  • Cites case of deer breeder who tested bucks on his own, has a release site next door under a same high fence; compromises were rejected by TPWD and TAHC, but will take longer to destroy herd than if they were released to adjacent facility
  • Live tests do not accomplish anything, only increase costs; pen surveillance program is working as intended and only issue was the delay in testing which is addressed in the TWDB proposed rules
  • Perceived enforcement issue, thought process that live testing is needed to increase confidence is only for 3% of the industry; heavy handed to increase regulation for a compliance rate of 97%
  • Adopted rules with zero increased surveillance on exotic species, regulation is hyper focused on breeders
  • Competition between naturalist, high fence, etc. ideologies hasn’t been discussed; a lot of the conversation is being driven by those that hate deer breeders because they don’t want to compete
  • Frullo – Regarding the breeder that tried to compromise on testing and releases, seems senseless to have 400 animals that are disposed of; what is the average animal worth
    • For the 49 bucks that he wanted to release, at least $10k a piece, $490k
  • Frullo – Substantial investment, seemed like the breeder was following the rules
  • Gervin-Hawkins – Hearing that overregulation has been a challenge; what would you say to someone who says a deer breeder should do everything they can to eliminate the disease
    • Need to stop destroying herds, TWIMS is a herd tracking tool developed by TPWD staff that can identify where deer went, how far removed they were from exposure, and whether they had CWD
    • Can help to clear or hold herds and works better than destruction
  • Gervin-Hawkins – So we should implement the tool rather than destroy herds; have you had the chance to discuss this we TWDB?
    • We’ve presented numerous options to not have to do live animal testing prior to release
  • Gervin-Hawkins – So the question is why
    • True – There is a place for live testing, but what happened this summer and permanent rules are penalizing unaffected herds
  • Cyrier – Dr. Schwartz with TAHC believes 100% of the animal population needs to be tested before release, hard not to listen to the expertise of the state veterinarian
    • Davis – Not negating his belief in this at all, but staff has said repeatedly it cannot say animals don’t have CWD
  • Cyrier – We heard some of the reasons why, delayed incubation, etc.
    • So what is the value of the test
  • Cyrier – Still going with what experts say is needed
    • Compliance data doesn’t support that theory, shows a pretty compliant industry
  • Cyrier – Appreciate the 97% compliance, do you really feel that these are compliant given your history with law enforcement as a game warden?
    • Game wardens have been taught to embrace community-oriented policing, developed around trust and relationships; this happened while I was there, trust and compliance were increased
    • Continual and perpetual process, enacting regulations aimed at 3% are counterproductive to this
  • Cyrier – And this goes both ways in the relationship

Chair King calls TPWD witnesses back

Carter Smith, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

Mitch Lockwood, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

  • Gervin-Hawkins – Would like a response to simple question; killing whole herds seems problematic, have you looked at the options brought to you
    • Smith, TPWD – Seems to be two primary objections to protocols 1) antemortem testing and 2) euthanizing herds that are CWD positive
    • Genesis of introduction of antemortem testing came from conversations in 2015-16 due to CWD in captive breeding facilities; promised to integrate antemortem testing to avoid euthanization whenever possible
    • Antemortem testing prior to release is done to increase probability of detection from 25% to 50% from a whole-herd perspective
    • Value of this test can be argued, but if we think about proposed rules, there is an 8-month value to the test at least and gives breeders opportunity to perform antemortem test 8 months prior to release
    • Euthanizing entire herds is terrible and very unfortunate, not a part of wildlife or disease management that anyone likes to see happen
    • Euthanizing herds is unfortunately also practiced in animal agriculture, deer settings mirror many aspects of animal agriculture with shared space and resources
    • We want other solutions aside from euthanization, better research and science will lead to these; university research is looking at possible blood test, breeding deer that are more resistant
    • Not the perfect answer, scenario presented by the witness was rejected by subject matter experts; conversations with that breeder continue
    • Lockwood, TPWD – Tremendous amount of confidence in antemortem testing, TX is the only state with this confidence and has been a tremendous surveillance tool for facilities that scaled back
    • Not just good for one day, rules propose 8 month release window
    • Tool has been used often to get facilities back to movement qualified status
  • Gervin-Hawkins – Heard that antemortem testing is so invasive that it destroys the animal
    • Badly mischaracterized, have 48k deer antemortem tested with very low mortality at the most stressful time of the year, similar to those that aren’t tested
  • Bailes – Where did the CWD in the defined animal breeding operations come from?
    • We don’t know, many theories
    • We don’t know if the index facilities are the index facilities; can’t know how long trace out animals would test positive or how many there are when going to release facilities without testing
  • Bailes – When there is a detected CWD case of a hunter harvested animal, the hunter is notified at a later date, agency receives byproducts which most of the time have already been consumed; question is what is the consequence of consuming products from infected animals, how do we know infected facilities are infected from animals harvested in the field?
  • Bailes – Also, when it is detected, what does TPWD with the meat?
    • TPWD does notify the hunter, could also be a notification from another state
    • We advise against consuming the venison according to CDC recommendations, but they can
    • TPWD offers to pick up dispose of the meat, incinerated at the diagnostic lab
    • Smith, TPWD – TPWD’s official position is to advise any hunter to not consume any meat from a sick animal, regardless of the disease
    • No evidence to suggest that CWD crosses species boundaries through infected meat; have seen this with cattle, but would never say the venison is safe to eat
    • Lockwood, TPWD – Said earlier that there is no evidence that people can get CWD, but some would challenge this; primate research has shown some evidence that CWD can transfer; correct statement is that there are no cases in people we know of
    • Smith, TPWD – We would never say it’s safe and would never advise consuming this meat
  • Bailes – If we have TWIMS and we are doing epidemiological study, could the facility infection come from an infected carcass?
    • Lockwood, TPWD – Very real possibility
  • K King – Can you speak to depopulating a whole herd with a not detected test?
    • We do have a number of not detected test result that turn up postmortem positive
    • Talking about facilities that through TWIMS are connected to CWD
  • K King – Brought you back to explain the agency’s confidence in the antemortem test, but have a facility with 49 deer depopulated with an antemortem test; you have tremendous confidence in the antemortem test, but this particular breeder had 49 depopulated deer with a not detected test
    • Facility you’re referring to is a CWD positive facility, has 20% positive rate in at least one pen, very high chance for positives in other parts of the facility
    • Very different from facilities without CWD positives
    • 49 tests conducted were rectal biopsies, the least sensitive test
  • K King – This is an antemortem test? Is there another type of antemortem test?
    • There is a tonsil test
    • Sensitivity of rectal test for genotype where CWD progresses rapidly is 69%, drops to 42% and possibly less in other genotypes
    • Risk of having a positive test in a CWD positive facility is far more likely than facilities without positives
  • K King – If that breeder has tried to mitigate risk and offered proposals, if this breeder had done the tonsil test as well with no positives, would your position change on allowing these deer to be hunted
    • No, not at this time; we tried this previously and found out how reckless and irresponsible this was to allow
  • Bailes – It is possible to miss a CWD positive animal through the biopsy; has there ever been a scenario with a positive biopsy and postmortem showed negative?
    • Never

Panel 3 – Texas A&M

Dr. Terry Hensley, Texas A&M

  • Provides overview of how antemortem testing is done at the diagnostics laboratory, several methods to detect proteins (immunohistochemistry, ELISA, etc.), turnaround is at best 27 hours, involvement of people in process means realistically 3-4 day turnaround; western blot is not effective at distinguishing CWD from scrapie
  • Antemortem testing was a challenge to start, worked with others to spin up an effective program; over the last year, performed 11k antemortem and 3k postmortem, average turnaround was 13 days; TVMDL will ran 28k-30k CWD samples throughout a year on average
  • Immunohistochemistry test is $45, EILSA $25-$30 depending on tissue

Dr. Christopher Seabury, Texas A&M

  • Provides history in the field of animal genomics, invented genome-wide testing in white tail deer, discovered high variability in susceptibility to CWD based on heritage
  • Took this research to look at selective breeding for resistance to CWD, able to accurately predict CWD prevalence in deer populations
  • Process for testing deer for susceptibility is similar to parentage test, same DNA used for parentage test can be used for CWD susceptibility; data is used in a predication model that gives each deer a score which summarizes proportions of protective and susceptible genetic elements
  • Have more capacity to do these tests than demand, could likely perform 50k/day, though demand is rising
  • Disease progression process is also highly heritable and predictable; studies show that even deer with partial protection to CWD, some become positive in less than a year; prefer to think about incubation period in terms of when a deer will test positive
  • Wisdom in live testing is being able to detect positive animals without any symptoms
  • CWD probably can occur spontaneously; in humans this is sporadic CJD, largely associated with underlying genetic differences
  • If it does happens spontaneously, it is not common, but studies have shown puzzling results
  • One facility received a trace out deer that bred does and lived with other bucks, was postmortem tested positive, but none of the other deer have tested positive; possibilities incl. spontaneous case, more durable genetic composition of animals
  • Tested 27 animals still living, only 3 or 4 didn’t pass the cutoff for being more susceptible; haven’t seen this in other situations
  • Burns – Did you test the positive buck as well?
    • In process now, very careful about testing materials out of a positive location, won’t do this without contacting TPWD and TAHC
  • Gervin-Hawkins – So your work and research will be able to compliment or advise TPWD?
    • Yes, has both high fence and low fence applications
    • Will definitely compliment TPWD operations, live testing postmortem testing, and genetic testing should make Texas the most competent state in terms of white tail deer
    • Also has implications for cleaning up facilities without depopulating an entire herd, some are better candidates than others, but there is not zero risk
  • Gervin-Hawkins – How much longer do you need to get results from your test? A formal report given to be able to use the data
    • Original study was published in 2020 and really done 2 years ago; working with USDA to get a program together similar to the scrapie program, but requires different technologies
  • Rosenthal – Many unknowns, most concerning is an animal is able to carry and transmit the disease without being able to test for a positive result
    • Yes, this is why USDA set regulatory period for 5 years, incubation period exists but live testing is valuable
  • Rosenthal – Sounds like you are adding to the ability to detect animals in the period they are infectious before they show signs
    • Yes, some of this is already being done; e.g. progression in genetically susceptible animals, data has allowed much more accurate predictions
  • Rosenthal – What will it take to harness this and put it into practice
    • Have put this into practice through USDA, have given breeding guidance
  •  Helped make test available to the public which also helps drive down cost
  • Rosenthal – Could we put this tech into use to stop spread with reasonable margin to stop need for culling herds
    • This was the primary intention, preventing
  • Can use his information as guide for surveillance, doing a project now to determine strength and weakness
  • Rosenthal – Once we’ve spotted this, can we get protocols for reasonable prevention and remove need to depopulate herds?
    • Some herds would be better candidates than others
    • In the Medina County area, if we cleaned up the herd, what is to stop a crow or coyote to bring CWD material into the facility and start another infection
    • If we tested and kept only the best ones, may not get another positive
    • Prevention is number 1, this would be number 2
  • Rosenthal – Period of time between initial exposure and being able to identify the disease using your method?
    • Was able to explain progression using genetics alone at higher than 50%, can use this as a guide for other efforts
    • Explaining significant variability in progression can help inform what types of tests would be most effective on some types of animals
  • Martinez – So you think it’s possible to clean up a CWD positive facility utilizing your research
    • This is a big question, would need to be agreed upon with TPWD and TAHC
    • If a facility buys a deer that dies, tests positive postmortem, no other deer test positive antemortem, could run genetic tests on the whole herd and remove most & moderately susceptible animals
    • Those with genetic durability would remain, could ride out a five year quarantine in that scenario and could allow release of deer into an adjacent facility with some level of confidence
    • Clean up wouldn’t come with zero risk, but owning deer doesn’t come with zero risk
    • In certain circumstances without a tangible prevalence established and without loaded environment through shedding, this could be possible
  • Martinez – Heard of a breeder with 49 animals that he wanted to release, could your research lead into cleaning up that herd overall
    • Answer would depend on CWD prevalence of the herd already, where the location is, and would’ve wanted tonsil tests on the animals for greater degree of confidence
    • If that facility had one positive animal and we did genetic testing, I could get comfortable, but would be situational on if I could
    • If it has a tangible level of prevalence already, this becomes more risky, only rectal testing
  • Bailes – Asked about western blot test
    • More effective if you have fresh tissue
    • Known about scrapies for some time, less costly to eradicate
    • How quickly you implement with impact the results

Stakeholder Panels

John True, Texas Deer Association

  • Was pulled up as a resource witness for King to follow up on previous testimony

Justin Dreibelbis, Texas Wildlife Association

  • Supportive of rules proposed
  • Has some recommendations to present
    • 100% ad mortem testing, permit ID tag that is identifiable from a distance
    • Landowners notified asap
    • Strong science based testing, look at every possible vector

Cody Webb, Texas and Southwestern Cattle Raisers Association

  • Support efforts made in regards to language of policy
  • Many owners also consider wildlife etc
  • Discusses processes he is familiar with and his involvement
  • K King – Heard testing is infallible and hoping can find common ground
  • K King – Has been told there is no such think as a false positive on CWD test, finds it hard to believe

Don Steinbach, Texas Wildlife Society

  • Has provided previous expert testimony, but their concerns are being realized
  • Other’s actions are putting Texans at risk moving deer and releasing them, support recent rules proposed and additional measures
  • Want ID visible at a distance
  • Agree with mandatory live testing and visible ISD from a distance
  • With unrestricted and unnatural movement around the state, have possibly exposed over 90 additional counties
  • K King – Asked about potential of false positives
    • Need to use every possible technique to prevent issue from moving

Alvin New, representing his ranches

  • Provides details on the CWD positive samples in 2020 – 49
  • Took him 29 days to get results on live testing, antibiotics and food and drink cost as well as pay for people
  • Cost of doing test include payroll and lost time
  • Testing helps provide surveillance data, not necessarily the breeder
  • What if amount to pay is split
  • All his deer are tagged and have hole in ear
  • CWD is manageable disease not something to be over reactive about
  • Have live tested all animals in 2016 due to a problem in 2015, yet counties where zero animals are tested
  • Rules in place are working
  • Do not push forward with costly or more restrictive rules
  • Permanent rules should be more consistent with previous permanent rules
  • 16 deer out of 5.4 million found with CWD in free ranging herd, but don’t ask all sports cars have different rules, etc
  • TPWD approach all are impacted… where more strategic action is needed
  • Cyrier – Reads from manual in Wyoming that department has not adopted any formal actions, doing nothing to prevent the disease is not an option
    • My point only is it give you the data, Game Department data on how many are trying to hunt, how many are being harvested, no deer breeding
    • Should require an across the board effort for what we do
  • K King – You don’t ship deer?
    • No, model is mostly about my ranch, most does and all bucks are on my ranch, but there are times when I ship breeding does
  • K King – Was going to ask about permits if you did not, but you do
    • Doing something that makes no sense is offensive, e.g. rule not allowing livestock that aren’t susceptible to CWD to be put in pens that held deer

Terry Moss, representing her ranch

  • Provides history of family ranch, business and ranch are invested in their deer herds
  • TPWD inspected the deer herd, tested 100% of the herd, above requirements
  • Each farm should be reviewed individually, not lumped into a blanket rule like the emergency rules this summer
  • Lost 4 deer in the process, testing cost isn’t just the test, but also the equipment needed to perform the tests; total loss was around $49k
  • Inconclusive tests need to be re-done
  • Pre-sold does this year and fawns were weaned early due to testing needed to meet contract deadline
  • Neighbors do not have to test 100% of what they shoot in the wild

Chair King calls TPWD witnesses back

Mitch Lockwood, Texas Parks and Wildlife Department

  • K King – Just want to clarify rule about not putting livestock in a pen that had CWD
    • Lockwood, TPWD – This is part of the rule package from last November, there are other diseases we are concerned about and coordinated with TAHC
    • TAHC got a lot of feedback from public so rules do limit residency
  • K King – If a person has a pen with white tail deer and then removes the deer, he can use those pens for other purposes?
    • Can use those pens for species not susceptible to CWD, can also eventually restock those pens with CWD susceptible species after adopting a herd plan

Closing Comments

  • K King – Asks committee members to submit comments by October 15th to provide to TPWD