ShareThis Page
Oh, deer! I |

Oh, deer! I

In response to Bob Frye’s Outdoors column “Frye: Chronic wasting disease news and hunter trends” : Following a deer testing positive for chronic wasting disease (CWD), reforms are needed to better track the disease.

Deer farms are already testing heavily for CWD: The state has mandated CWD surveillance on private facilities and movements of animals are also tracked. Further, any farm in the country that moves deer across state lines has to abide by the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s CWD certification program. To be eligible, a facility must test all eligible mortalities for at least five years with no CWD positives.

In contrast, state wildlife agencies across the country routinely test only 1 percent of the animals; in Pennsylvania, only 48,000 free-ranging animals have been tested since 1998. There are over 1 million free-ranging deer in the state. That’s a low testing rate, and it means the state does not have an accurate picture of whether free-ranging deer are spreading CWD across the state.

Fortunately, CWD is rare. USDA data collected between 1998 and 2012 show CWD is prevalent in only four in 1,000 free-ranging deer and elk, and prevalent at half that rate in farmed cervids. However, the state needs to do more testing of free-ranging animals to better address the disease. Deer farms are already regulated and the fact that they are testing regularly shouldn’t be used against them.

Charly Seale

Ayr, Neb.

The writer is a council member with the American Cervid Alliance (

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.