• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Three more cases of CWD found in wild deer ALBERTA

flounder

Well-known member
Subject: Three more cases of chronic wasting disease found in wild deer ALBERTA
Date: January 4, 2007 at 8:29 am PST
December 21, 2006

Correction: replaces December 11 news release distributed in error this afternoon

Three more cases of chronic wasting disease found in wild deer

Hunters and landowners help surveillance program

Edmonton... Alberta is now about half-way through testing for its 2006-07 chronic wasting disease (CWD) surveillance program. Three more cases of CWD in wild deer have been confirmed out of the 1,609 deer tested. This brings the total to 16 cases in wild deer in Alberta since the first case in September 2005.

The three new cases involve deer taken during the recent hunting season in areas being monitored for the disease by Sustainable Resource Development, Fish and Wildlife staff. A male mule deer from along the Red Deer River (wildlife management unit [WMU] 151) tested positive for the disease. Two female mule deer were taken west of Edgerton and south of Chauvin (in WMU 234).

One of these animals came from near previously known Alberta cases. The other two came from a high-risk area near Saskatchewan where positive wild and farmed deer have been found. Two of these latest cases were confirmed December 8, and the third (near Chauvin) on December 20.

Hunters and landowners have played a critical role in the success of the CWD control program. Many Alberta hunters have participated in the quota hunts, and landowners have allowed additional hunting on their property. Most seasons are closed now in the target areas, with the final licence season ending on January 15, 2007.

Hunters are reminded that submitting deer heads is a requirement in five wildlife management units along the Alberta/Saskatchewan border. These include WMUs 150, 151, 234, 256, and 500. Any heads taken in these areas and kept frozen since the animal was shot can still be dropped off at a Fish and Wildlife office or at one of the 24-hour freezers. Maps and information are posted at www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fw/diseases/.

Chronic wasting disease affects the nervous system; infected animals cannot maintain weight and slowly waste away. There is no scientific evidence to suggest that CWD can infect humans. As a precaution, the World Health Organization advises against allowing products from animals known to be infected with CWD into the human food system. The three hunters have been contacted and were offered various alternatives including a replacement tag or replacement meat.

- 30 -

Correction: replaces December 11 news release distributed in error this afternoon

Map attached.


http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200612/20922.pdf




http://www.gov.ab.ca/acn/200612/20922A6C2D375-F4E5-78CC-BC33B4BA29B031C5.html




Alberta’s CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE

MANAGEMENT PROGRAMS in 2006

and upcoming surveillance

M.J.Pybus, PhD, Provincial Wildlife Disease Specialist, Fish and Wildlife Division, Alberta Sustainable

Resource Development, Edmonton, on behalf of Alberta’s CWD team

Chronic wasting disease (CWD) is a chronic degenerative and ultimately fatal disease of cervids

(primarily deer and elk). It has the potential to eliminate local cervid populations and is considered a

significant threat to deer populations in Alberta. Through CWD surveillance and management activities

previous to 2006, two geographical areas were identified as potentially high risk for CWD incursion into

Alberta: the Dillberry Lake Provincial Park area south of Chauvin (in wildlife management unit [WMU]

234), and the region around the confluence of the Red Deer and South Saskatchewan rivers (in WMUs

150 and 151). At the end of 2005, four CWD-positive mule deer were identified in Alberta, all from the

latter region (see map). ...........


snip.......full text ;


http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fw/diseases/CWD/pdf/2006%20CWD%20report%20and%20upcoming%20surveillance.pdf



CWD MAP ALBERTA

http://www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fw/diseases/CWD/pdf/CWD_positive_Dec2006.pdf

BSE ALBERTA

2006-08-23 - BSE Confirmed in Alberta

2006-07-10 - Potential BSE Case in Alberta

2006-01-23 - BSE Detected in Alberta

2005-01-11 - New Case of BSE Detected

2005-01-02 - BSE Confirmed in Suspect Animal, Investigations Underway


http://www.inspection.gc.ca/english/anima/heasan/disemala/bseesb/newcome.shtml


ALBERTA, YOU GOT A PROBLEM. ...TSS
 

flounder

Well-known member
USDA Sets News Conference on Plan to Expand Canada Cattle Trade

By Daniel Enoch

Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- The U.S. Department of Agriculture will hold a news conference today on a plan to ease restrictions on imports of older cattle from countries such as Canada that are considered at minimal risk for mad-cow disease.

The department's chief veterinarian, John Clifford, will participate, the USDA said in an e-mailed statement. The news conference is scheduled to begin at 3 p.m. in Washington.

A proposal to allow shipments of Canadian cattle over 30 months of age was put on hold in July when Canada found mad-cow disease in an animal born in 2002, well after the nation imposed feed regulations in 1997 designed to curb the spread of the brain-wasting livestock illness. The USDA in November said it was going ahead with the plan.

Both the U.S. and Canada insist the disease has been confined mainly to animals born before the feed ban. Canada has found eight mad-cow cases since 2003. The U.S. has found three.

The U.S. banned Canadian cattle and beef in May 2003 after Canada's first case of mad-cow disease, which is clinically known as bovine spongiform encephalopathy, or BSE. When the ban was eased in August 2003 to allow imports of younger cattle and boneless beef from those animals, the USDA said it hoped to eventually end all restrictions. The U.S. only began importing younger Canadian cattle last July because of a court challenge.

To contact the reporter on this story: Daniel Enoch in Washington at [email protected] .
Last Updated: January 4, 2007 11:08 EST


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


Docket No. 03-080-1 -- USDA ISSUES PROPOSED RULE TO ALLOW LIVE ANIMAL
IMPORTS FROM CANADA


https://web01.aphis.usda.gov/BSEcom.nsf/0/b78ba677e2b0c12185256dd300649f9d?OpenDocument&AutoFramed



TSS
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Terry in Saskatchewan we have a vigorous CWD testing program and have had hunts in areas of concern to reduce deer numbers.
Do you know what states have CWD programs in place? also do you know any results from these programs?
I think Colorado was where they thought the first cases came from in farmed game.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Terry in Saskatchewan we have a vigorous CWD testing program and have had hunts in areas of concern to reduce deer numbers.
Do you know what states have CWD programs in place? also do you know any results from these programs?
I think Colorado was where they thought the first cases came from in farmed game.



http://www.tahc.state.tx.us/animal_health/diseases/cwd/cwd.shtml

http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/nahps/cwd/cwd62602.pdf

http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/policy.policy


see page 23

http://www.bseinquiry.gov.uk/files/mb/m11b/tab01.pdf


kind regards,
terry
 

Mrs.Greg

Well-known member
Greg and I along with our local fish and game fought and fought hard to keep these farmed game animals out of Alberta.Unfortunatly they were allowed in...they brought CWD with them and when the market bottomed out the guys raising these animals just set them free....still really pisses me off :mad: :evil:
 

flounder

Well-known member
Mrs.Greg said:
Greg and I along with our local fish and game fought and fought hard to keep these farmed game animals out of Alberta.Unfortunatly they were allowed in...they brought CWD with them and when the market bottomed out the guys raising these animals just set them free....still really p***** me off :mad: :evil:


hello Mrs. Greg,

some states are fighting those game farms here ;

January 4, 2007
Groups aim to shut down captive elk-ranching industry
By Mark Freeman
Mail Tribune
The unlikely bedfellows of animal-rights and hunting groups again are taking a collective run at closing Oregon's captive elk-ranching industry over fears the exotic herds threaten wild elk populations.

But this time, the so-called MAD-elk Coalition has found fresh wind in its sails thanks to the misfortunes of an Idaho elk rancher whose animals escaped last summer, threatening the health and gene pool of Yellowstone's storied elk.

Backers say they don't want an Oregon ranch to repeat the escape of more than 100 exotic elk in Idaho, where the state's governor has ordered the wayward animals shot before they can interbreed with native elk.

Now the coalition here has support from the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife in calling for the drafting of new rules that would increase fencing restrictions on the remaining 16 elk ranches in Oregon and ban any transfers of ranching licenses.

That would mean current ranches would be further isolated from any contact with wild elk. Eventually, the practice of raising elk for meat and antler sales here would eventually disappear when current ranchers die or fold their businesses.

"We'd like to see them out of business entirely because the threat to wildlife is so high," says Jan Wilson, a Eugene attorney and member of the coalition, which includes the Humane Society of the United States as well as the Oregon Hunters Association and several preservation groups.

"I think the Idaho situation ... shows that the risk is real and that it can happen anywhere," Wilson says. "We always know there is the potential for an escape."

The group, which draws its name from Mad Cow Disease — a bovine version of chronic wasting disease found in some captive elk throughout the West — has formally petitioned the Oregon Fish and Wildlife Commission to consider new fencing rules and the ban on license transfers.

Double fences would provide an added protection from escape as well as remove any likelihood of nose-to-nose contact between wild and domestic elk. Nose-to-nose contact is one way elk can spread CWD, tuberculosis or other diseases that can devastate herds.

The coalition also filed a second petition seeking to phase out the industry entirely over the next five years by no longer re-issuing elk-ranching licenses when the current licenses expire.

When the commission takes up the petitions Jan. 12 in Salem, ODFW biologists will support exploring new restrictions.

However, the agency is not supporting the five-year phase-out period that would see elk-ranching licenses disappear here by 2012.

The commission 13 years ago capped the number of so-called "cervid" ranching permits at 16, the number of active licenses at that time. Those included an elk farm now located in the Gold Ray Estates area as well as one in rural Central Point, both of which currently have licenses.

At that time double-fencing was just recommended, not required.

This time, agency biologists say cases like the Idaho escape show that single fences alone aren't enough to keep non-native elk completely segregated from native animals.

"I think the department's concern is how they could potentially affect native wildlife," says Larry Cooper, assistant administrator of the ODFW's Wildlife Division. "The threat's always there. That's true."

It doesn't ring true to Clackamas County elk rancher Bill McCamman, who believes the threat to native elk is wildly exaggerated. He also considers the proposed changes too Draconian, especially in light of only isolated problems like the Idaho dilemma.

"It's like one person speeds and everybody has their driver's license taken away," McCamman says. "It's ludicrous."

McCamman says the state should buy him and other ranchers out if they want to end cervid ranching here, not just regulate the industry literally to death.

"They say it's a bigger threat now than ever before, but I don't see it," McCamman says.

"If it's a real threat — and I don't think it is — then get rid of all of us right now," McCamman says. "But prove it's a threat."

If the commission accepts the petition as expected, it will order ODFW biologists to draft proposed rules. Those would include specific fencing requirements, deadlines for any required construction and even penalties for violations, Cooper says.

"We haven't even been told to do anything yet," Cooper says. "We're looking down the road, but we're just in the first few steps just yet.

Any changes could come from a commission vote after public review and comment that surely will swirl around the Idaho dilemma.

"Idaho is an impetus for Oregon to take action," says Kelly Peterson, HSUS's Oregon program coordinator. "We don't really want to wait for a crisis."

So far, Oregon has sidestepped CWD outbreaks found in both exotic and native herds elsewhere, thanks largely to bans on imported big-game body parts from CWD states and curbs on importation of exotic elk species.

But the Idaho escape has put elk-ranching into the cross-hairs of opponents like never before, aligning animal-rights and hunting groups like few issues can.

"It's a diverse group, but the group believes now would be the time to phase this out," says lobbyist Al Elkins, who represents the Medford-based OHA on the coalition.

Reach reporter Mark Freeman at 776-4470, or e-mail [email protected]

Commentary


http://www.mailtribune.com/archive/2007/0104/sport/stories/cervidpetition-freecol.htm

TSS
 

Big Muddy rancher

Well-known member
Thanks Terry, I see by the western Governors report that the western states and provinces are working together on their programs to some extent anyways.
 

flounder

Well-known member
Big Muddy rancher said:
Thanks Terry, I see by the western Governors report that the western states and provinces are working together on their programs to some extent anyways.


your welcome there big muddy. don't think for one minute i am singling Canada out as being worse off than the USA in Terms of TSEs. I just think that any country in the shape of Canada or USA should adhere to the BSE GBR risk assessments and old trade protocols (which i said years ago should be changed to include all TSE in all species), as opposed to GWs and the OIEs BSE MRR policy, which allows all strains of TSE to be traded legally, and globally$ there is absolutely nothing that is science-based about that damn BSE MRR policy. This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth. this BSE MRR policy set the erradication of BSE globally back to where it started, square one $$$ this BSE MRR policy should be repealed and the BSE GBR risk assessments strengthened to include ALL TSE in ALL SPECIES. ...TSS
 

mwj

Well-known member
BM check out a lot of states and you will see programs in place for CWD. My state was the 2nd state west of the Miss. river to have the prob and they have been VERY pro active about the prob. It is a shame the cattle industry has not been as active with the BSE issue :oops:
 

Texan

Well-known member
Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....

flounder said:
This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.

I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.
 

Bill

Well-known member
Texan said:
Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....

flounder said:
This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.

I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.

I was wondering exactly the same thing Texan.
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Texan said:
Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....

flounder said:
This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.

I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.

R-CALF doesn't have a protectionist agenda. If you would take the time to look at everything they've said and done, you would be able to clearly see that not to be the case. Our foes hung that tag on us and others echo it without seeming to know what "protectionist" means.
 

Texan

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
R-CALF doesn't have a protectionist agenda. If you would take the time to look at everything they've said and done, you would be able to clearly see that not to be the case. Our foes hung that tag on us and others echo it without seeming to know what "protectionist" means.
What does "protectionist" mean? In your own words, please. :lol:
 

Bill

Well-known member
Sandhusker said:
Texan said:
Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....

flounder said:
This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.

I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.

R-CALF doesn't have a protectionist agenda. If you would take the time to look at everything they've said and done, you would be able to clearly see that not to be the case. Our foes hung that tag on us and others echo it without seeming to know what "protectionist" means.

Sandhusker it's just like don said earlier, keep repeating a lie and you start beleiving it!

Who exactly are your foes?
 

Texan

Well-known member
Texan said:
What does "protectionist" mean? In your own words, please. :lol:
I guess you got busy. I'll try to check back later. I was just killing a little time while I was watching the feeder board. Now I've got to go feed. I'm anxious to learn, though. Thanks.
 

Hanta Yo

Well-known member
Bill said:
Sandhusker said:
Texan said:
Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....



I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.

R-CALF doesn't have a protectionist agenda. If you would take the time to look at everything they've said and done, you would be able to clearly see that not to be the case. Our foes hung that tag on us and others echo it without seeming to know what "protectionist" means.

Sandhusker it's just like don said earlier, keep repeating a lie and you start beleiving it!

Who exactly are your foes?


:shock: :shock: MY it got quiet here all of a sudden :shock: :shock:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Who exactly are your foes?

I'd say the main ones that have attacked R-CALF has been the Big Corporate Multinational Packing Industry --those that lose the most by telling consumers the truth about the country of origin of their beef and the truth about the safety concerns of some imported beef...

They have been packed by some of their bought off puppets like the USDA/AMI/NCBA/AFF/ etc.......
 

Sandhusker

Well-known member
Texan said:
Texan said:
What does "protectionist" mean? In your own words, please. :lol:
I guess you got busy. I'll try to check back later. I was just killing a little time while I was watching the feeder board. Now I've got to go feed. I'm anxious to learn, though. Thanks.

I use Webster's definition. For your benefit;
Economics. the theory, practice, or system of fostering or developing domestic industries by protecting them from foreign competition through duties or quotas imposed on importations.

What is the amount of duty that R-CALF has proposed on imports? What quota has R-CALF asked for on imports? I'm anxious to learn. Thanks.
 
Top