CWD Regulation Changes Update

from Conservation Federation vol 84 no 3

Why Conservation Matters

Last October, the Missouri Conservation Commission published a proposed rule to modify the restrictions on applications for new confined cervid facilities. The Missouri Department of Conservation (MDC) developed the draft rule with input from the high-fence deer farming industry. The Conservation Federation was not asked for input during the development of the new rule.

The old rule prohibited new confined cervid facilities within 25 miles of a confirmed Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) positive. The new rule reduces the ban to a 10-mile buffer, reducing the affected acreage by 84%. However, the rule requires any new high fence facilities in the 10-25 mile donut to double fence their perimeter. Double fencing significantly reduces (but does not eliminate) the risk of escapes.

The proposal triggered a mandatory comment period, during which the CFM Executive Committee submitted a comment opposing the rule change. The full comment is available here: https://bit.ly/cfmresponse. Here are some excerpts:

The confined cervid industry cannot operate without posing the risk of further spread of CWD. Accommodating industry expansion into areas already known to harbor CWD does not adequately protect Missouri’s deer herd.

We support double fencing for all confined cervid facilities, both new and existing. However, we oppose this proposal to allow new facilities to be permitted within 10 to 25 miles from a CWD positive test.

The current rule prohibiting new facility permits nearby is a more responsible policy than the proposed rule allowing new facilities. Deer still escape from double fences because of downed trees, open water gaps, erosion, human error and through other means.

The 25-mile limit is more protective of the native deer herds given the variability of deer travel.

In January, the Conservation Commission adopted the rule without change despite CFM’s objection. The complete Conservation Commission response to our comments can be found at: https://bit.ly/mccresponse.

Their response seems to say that so long as the risk to public wildlife resources is in their eyes tolerable, it is appropriate to facilitate the expansion of the industry that poses that risk. Though regulation, testing and compliance have improved significantly in recent years, this is still the industry that almost certainly brought CWD to Missouri. CWD has led to hardships for hunters in CWD zones and cost the Conservation Commission millions of dollars.

In their proposal, the Commission stated the change was developed "As part of discussions with the captive cervid industry, providing opportunity for new operations … with a double-fencing requirement is a satisfactory reduction of risk to the deer population on both sides of the fence." Nobody questions that double fencing is a significant improvement over single. But no facility at all would mean that no new live cervids will be trucked in, eliminating rather than merely reducing that particular source of risk. MDC has done a lot to combat and slow the spread of CWD within Missouri and may feel that increased ability to regulate the confined cervid industry offsets any additional risk associated with new facilities. We, however, feel that any additional risk is too much, especially given that the disease continues to spread through various natural vectors.

CWD continues to expand despite consuming significant resources of the MDC. Placing the interest of industry ahead of the public seems wrong. Hopefully this development sparks renewed interest in Commission actions and leads to more pointed discussion of this very important conservation matter.

CFM Executive Committee