Maybe we shall see.

Has this happened in CO, Wyoming, Nebraska and Wisconsin?

They're still at sub 50% prevalence rates with the number climbing every year.

It's GOING to be a problem. How big? Id rather not find out here.

So we have atleast a minimum 70 more years here.

As for the first question I don't imagine anyone knows. What if you killed a deer somewhere and disposed of of it at a different location. Does that make that location now a "carrier" for the disease? As for the second question. Check the deer per acre in the city of Bandera. I don't know of any HF places that are that over stocked. If that is the case every deer within 5 miles of Bandera should be affected.

I've stayed out of these discussions for a long time but will provide some information. I've done a lot of reading on cwd, one thing to know is that persistence in the environment is highly variable, in some soil types, the infectious prion is greatly reduced in six months and undetectable within three years. The flip side is that is that, in certain sandy soils, the prion is highly persistent remaining in the soil and binding with plants, to make for an anthrax type infectious cycle. That cycle means that the cervid population always has some level of disease. Another fact about prion diseases is that they can occur spontaneously, a random misfolded protein can start an infection, where none was before and no contact has occurred with a possible source.

Thank you for the first answer. I read some say CWD transfers easily from deer to deer by nose contact, etc. Some say that is not true.

The second is not an answer to anything, the same as pointing to the CWD mule deer found in west TX is not an answer to anything. Just because there are some wild areas that are high risk is not a justification for creating a bunch of other areas that are. Not every high risk area will result in a disease breakout. But having less high risk areas would be desirable. If they do indeed increase the risk.

Science can surely do better than "Sh*t happens".

What is going with LF wild deer is just deflection from the question of whether or not HF practices increase risk. I mean, when there are known disease vectors, you don't just throw up your hands and say "Welp, that's it, let's quit trying" just because there some cases break out somewhere.

If there is transmission by deer to deer contact, it makes sense that moving deer from place to place increases risk.
If bunching deer up more increases risk, having more instances of bunched up deer increases risk.

If not, then not.

you have to have it inside the fence for it to get there unless again it's naturally occurring and can introduce it self.....in that case fence or no fence doesn't matter

A fence isn't bunching deer up. Exceeding or pushing carring capacity is bunching deer up.

Lack of Fence doesn't make deer wild either just like a game preserve doesn't make a lion tame

You don't understand statistics and epidemiology.

It's very easy to say "test the same percentage" etc etc

The fact of the matter is, in larger populations you dont have to test as many animals to find disease at a percentage prevalence.

If you only have 100 animals in a population you have to test all of them to determine a 1% prevalence. It's 1 animal.

In a herd of 4 million 1% prevalence is 40,000 animals. You don't have to test all 4 million before you find a positive.

The actual number is much smaller, and the testing done has greatly exceeded the requirements for the confidence levels.

For reference to how this is done look here: Specifically section 4.4.1

http://www.fao.org/wairdocs/ilri/x5436e/x5436e06.htm

There is a lot of misinformation out there. A lot of people are angry, but sound science is being followed.

As to EHD and Anthrax, I don't really get the argument. Anthrax is confined locally due to environmental conditions. EHD burns itself out because it kills so fast and the population can locally rebound. (It's less of a problem in Texas since our native deer are highly resistant)

One disease's ability to kill deer doesn't make another disease that kills deer less of a problem.

It's a problem we have a chance to get ahead of, and the prudent thing to do is to monitor and restrict artificial movement of deer to those practices that have been screened with the necessary safeguards to give us a high degree of confidence that that movement isn't spreading this disease.

What is going with LF wild deer is just deflection from the question of whether or not HF practices increase risk. I mean, when there are known disease vectors, you don't just throw up your hands and say "Welp, that's it, let's quit trying" just because there some cases break out somewhere.

If there is transmission by deer to deer contact, it makes sense that moving deer from place to place increases risk.
If bunching deer up more increases risk, having more instances of bunched up deer increases risk.

If not, then not.

Just more deflection. Anyone who drives the roads can see the HF breeder places with a bunch of deer confined in paddocks. That doesn't occur in nature.

And some deer are trucked many miles, sometimes hundreds or more. That doesn't occur in nature either.

I simply want to know if those are risks, or not?

I understand statistics and epidemiology pretty good.

I know I lost 80 to 90% of my deer in val verde co to anthrax back in 2000 (just like everybody in a 4 county area did). I know I lost a lot of deer in in another area to EHD in 2012.

You know how many tpwd schmucks were concerned about the loss of 80-90% of deer populations in vast areas of Texas?? 0.00%.

Your quote below is pretty good evidence. You not only don't know that our deer aren't resistant to EHD, you don't care.

"As to EHD and Anthrax, I don't really get the argument. Anthrax is confined locally due to environmental conditions. EHD burns itself out because it kills so fast and the population can locally rebound. (It's less of a problem in Texas since our native deer are highly resistant)"

Tell ya what aim small, when CWD kills 1% of what EHD and anthrax kill in Texas, come back and tell me the sky is falling. AFTER you've proven you really are concerned about WTD pathogens by expressing concern over the real killers of WTD.

Can "deer science" have its own category?
I hate looking at this category and all I see is CWD. I'm sure I can't be the only one that feels this way.

"ABSTRACT: Differences in innate disease resistance at the sub-species level have major implications
for wildlife management. Two subspecies of white-tailed deer, Odocoileus virginianus borealis
and O. virginianus texanus were infected with epizootic hemorrhagic disease (EHD) viruses.
These viruses are highly virulent pathogens of white-tailed deer and are endemic within
the range of O. virginianus texanus but not within the range of O. virginianus borealis. Two
experimental infections were performed. Five O. virginianus texanus fawns and five O. virginianus
borealis fawns were infected with 107.1 median tissue culture infective doses (TCID50) of
EHD virus, serotype 1 and five of each subspecies were infected with 107.1 TCID50 of EHD
virus, serotype 2. Infections with both EHD virus serotypes caused severe clinical disease and
mortality in O. virginianus borealis fawns, whereas disease was mild or nondetectable in O.
virginianus texanus fawns. Virus titers and humoral immune response were similar in both subspecies
suggesting that differences in innate disease resistance explain the differences seen in
clinical disease severity. In white-tailed deer, innate disease resistance may vary at the subspecies
level. Should this phenomenon occur in other species, these findings have major implications for
managing wildlife populations, both endangered and non-endangered, using tools such as translocation
and captive propagation."

http://www.jwildlifedis.org/doi/pdf/10.7589/0090-3558-38.4.713

As to the 1% comment:

Why worry about heart disease, cancer's a lot worse.

We have lived with Anthrax for years. We know what the anthrax zone is, and as a result the recreational value of that land is depressed when compared to areas outside.

EHD is not a persistent disease. It flares, deer die and then the population rebounds over time.

CWD isn't like either one of those diseases, it is a persistent creeping disease that's 100% fatal over time.

It's an apples and oranges comparison.

You are paraphrasing like a liberal judge rewriting the constitution. HF doesn't equal breeder, nor high densities. Last HF place I hunted was 21k. The HF ranch next to my lease is 18k. We have a higher density then they do by a bunch. Last HF place I visited was 4K acres out side of Kerrville. It was one deer to 67 acres. A fifth of what the LF neighbor density was.


Again like I said earlier IF transmission is soley via contact, a HF doesn't matter, deer density matters. More dense the higher the transmission rate would be in theory exept the two area with the Highest numbers of CWD positive deer have been low denisity areas in Texas.

Unless CWD can happen spontaneously or genetically it has to be introduced. Note also everyone is still puzzled on how Arkasas and southern NM got it. Infact most are still trying to figure out how Medina got it also.

Incorrect we are finding some elk are resistant to CWD. Which means WT's and Mulies will have the same ability.

Was it just over hunting and screw worms that caused massive relocation efforts in the 20's...........