Comment from Anne Draper

The following is in response to Docket No. 00-108-7 Proposed rule for Chronic Wasting Disease Herd Certification Program and Interstate Movement of Farmed or Captive Deer, Elk, and Moose. Submitted by the Colorado Elk Breeders Association, May 17, 2009. 1. APHIS suggested changes to paragraph (a) of Section 81.3 as published at 71 FR 41706. Requirements for cervids moved interstate for non-slaughter purposes on the basis of their participation in the certification program. “We propose to amend this paragraph to state that the farmed or captive cervid must be enrolled in the CWD Herd Certification Program in a herd that has achieved Certified status, and must be accompanied by a certificate that states this and that also identifies the herd of origin and states that the animal does not show clinical signs associated with CWD.” (Emphasis added) Would this require a veterinarian to inspect prior to movement? If so, the requirement is extremely burdensome. In Colorado, the Colorado Division of Brand Inspection must inspect all animals – having a vet inspect in addition to the Brand Board inspector prior to movement is unnecessary if the herd has been certified. Also, the State Brand Inspector would easily recognize CWD symptoms. 2. APHIS suggested change to Section 81.4 APHIS proposes that the “certificate would have to include a statement by the issuing accredited veterinarian . . . that the animals are not . . . epidemiologically linked to herd where CWD has been diagnosed within the past 5 years. . . . “ It is appreciated that APHIS is attempting to draft straightforward uniform rules for the interstate movement of cervids to prevent the spread of CWD. However, in some situations, the accredited or State veterinarian must have some leeway in determining the risk associated with an animal. For instance, if a CWD positive animal on a farm had been imported years earlier from a farm in an area with no instances of CWD on the farm or in the area, and the originating farm had been certified for many years, it is not only possible but probable that the animal contracted the disease on the receiving farm. It is known that the incubation period can be less than three years. This has happened in Colorado. Thus the originating farm should not be penalized if the animal contracted the disease after it left the original farm. The State veterinarian instead could certify that he/she has determined that no other animals leaving the original farm were linked epidemiologically to any herd where CWD has been diagnosed (omit the phrase, “within the past 5 years”.). “The certificate would have to also include a statement . . . as to whether the animals’ premises are within 25 miles (40 km) of an area where a federally or State-identified case of CWD in wild deer, elk, or moose, or within 25 miles (40km) or an area where CWD has become established in wild deer, elk or moose . . . “ Again, the State Veterinarian must be given substantial weight in determining an animal’s risk. Twenty-five miles is an arbitrary number and does not allow the issuing veterinarian to take into consideration such things as hunting pressure, migration routes (particularly in mountainous areas), whether the exporting farm is double fenced or has a double barrier to prevent any contact with wild animals outside the fence, or any natural barriers that would prohibit an animal from coming closer to the exporting farm. APHIS conducted a 13-month survey in Colorado, which determined no nose-to-nose contact occurred between animals in the wild and animals behind a double barrier (which is an electric fence inside the eight-foot fence). We suggest that the 25-mile requirement be removed. This provision would put very good farms with excellent surveillance records out of business. Additionally, this provision also penalizes States with better wild cervid surveillance programs. 3. . . . we propose to amend Section 55.22(a), Participation and enrollment, by adding a provision that an application for participation may also be denied if APHIS or the State determines that the applicant’s herd was established after the effective date of a final rule following this proposal on a premises within 25 miles (40km) of a Federally or State-identified case of CWD in wild deer, elk or moose, or within 25 miles (40km) of a area, as defined by APHIS and the State, where CWD has become established in wild deer, elk or moose.” We reiterate our objection stated in #2 above. Additionally, this preempts a State’s own requirements for issuing licenses. The new farm could be a hunting ranch that would import bulls interstate from certified farms. All animals leaving the premises would be dead. Colorado rules provide strict requirements for handling and disposing of all parts of carcasses leaving CWD farms. The captive cervid industry is struggling as it is without any more barriers to entry. Again, the State authorities are the best judge of whether a new license should be issued. 4. “. . . we propose to change Section 55.23(a) to specifically state that no movement of animals into CWD-positive, CWD-exposed, and CWD-suspect herd is allowed.” This requirement could very well put several ranches in Colorado out of business. These ranches are hunting operations and were able to remain in business after CWD-positive animals were found on them and subsequently placed under stringent conditions of a herd plan approved by the State Veterinarian, the Colorado Division of Wildlife and the Colorado Department of Agriculture. Not allowing these farms to import would require that they breed all their animals. This is turn would greatly increase the density of their cervid populations -- with breeding cows and their male and female offspring. Not only would this increase the likelihood of further transmission of CWD, but also places a severe financial burden on the farm to feed and care for the additional animals that would not be required if import is not permitted. Also, most hunting ranches are terminal facilities and do not import bulls that will remain on the property for more than a year or two. This greatly reduces the animals’ chances of contracting the disease. APHIS’ concern about the possibility of increased costs to its indemnity program is misplaced. APHIS should change its rules to apply only to herds that elect indemnity within a certain time frame following discovery. Alternatively, any producer that takes advantage of the indemnity program must enter into a contract with APHIS. Such contract could easily provide indemnity only for animals on the ranch when the first case of CWD was diagnosed. In Colorado, CWD positive producers must enter into a Herd Plan agreement with the State Veterinarian’s office, the Division of Wildlife, and the Department of Agriculture in order to be able to import animals. These contracts usually have such a provision in them. These Herd Plans, specifically are developed to limit the spread of the disease on the farm and in the wild. Again, this requirement does not permit the State veterinarian and Division of Wildlife to take into consideration other factors, such as a double fence and/or a double barrier – both preventing escape and nose-to-nose contact with wild animals. Please refer to the APHIS study mentioned in #2 above. 5. Proposed changes to Section 55.23 (b)(4) APHIS proposes to change this section to require a physical assembly for individual inspection of the animals at the time a herd is enrolled in the Federal-State cooperative CWD program and some type of herd inventory performed annually. It is unclear from the text of this proposed rule whether State requirements will satisfy the AHPIS inspection requirements. In Colorado, all animals coming to a farm must be inspected on arrival by a Brand Inspector to verify the individual identification numbers. And annually, each herd is inventoried unrestrained by the Brand Inspector and the records documenting animal identification are verified by the Inspector. Current regulations in Colorado are exactly as described in the report, except that a Brand Inspector carries out inspections. The Division of Brand Inspection in Colorado is responsible for overseeing facilities and animal inventories. The State Veterinarian’s office is responsible for animal health. CEBA proposes that APHIS rules provide flexibility for States to determine which regulatory bodies will enforce State regulations that would fulfill the requirements of the new Section 55.23 (b)(4). The actual language proposed for this section states that the “APHIS employee or State representative may order either an inventory that consists of review of herd records with visual examination of an enclosed group of animals, or a complete physical herd inventory with verification to reconcile all animals and identifications with the records maintained by the owner.” Language needs to be added to state that the latter inspection can only be required with sufficient reason to expect that poor records are being kept. Also, timing of such inspections should be limited to those periods where animal health will not be endangered; e.g. cows in late stage of pregnancy, bulls in velvet or hard antler. Respectfully submitted COLORADO ELK BREEDERS ASSOCIATION Anne Draper President