Joined Sep 2010
572 Posts | 0+
Indiana
Wild Rivers Whitetails said:
Pierre David would also, & I'd expect the sambar's & rusa's to contract it as well, at this point in time.
Sharkey
Joined Apr 2009
1,428 Posts | 0+
Northeast Wisconsin
I was looking for what the rules proposed covered in terms of species. We have some Indian tribes here in WI that raise red deer for meat. Not sure if they are covered by the rules or not since they are raised on tribal land - probably not. There are also some folks that raise fallow and sika deer, and it appears CWd rules do not apply to them since it is unknown in these species.
Has anyone heard any changes or news on the rules and standards meeting in Washington last week?
Below is the email update sent out to ACA members yesterday. The only thing that I will add that wasn't in this email was the fact that Dr. Clifford admitted he had not read the Standards and did not know what was in it. Dr. Hartmann put him on the spot pretty good that if he was to read it he would understand the difficulties that the SWG was having making changes to have it more truly reflect the fact that it is a control program and not eradication based as the Standards were originally written.
******************************************************************
Just a quick email bringing everyone up to speed on where the Standards Working Group (SWG) is at after the meeting this morning.
This morning’s meeting started out with Dr. Clifford addressing the group and explaining his position and direction for the SWG moving forward. He gave the direction that the SWG was to complete their work within 60 days and after that it would go out to the Federal Register and be put out for comment. He also stated that the Standards were to be control based not eradication based and that the SWG needed to structure the language to carry that out. He also said that the program was to minimize the risk of spread for CWD but to not put herds out of business as there was no money at this time for indemnification. Another point he made was that the SWG was to write in maximum flexibility for the states to run their own program but still minimize the risk of spreading CWD and follow the federal rule.
The question was asked of him if we could remove particular sections such as Part B or other sections if agreement couldn’t be reached. He said he wished we would rework the document before considering throwing out any sections. He also said that the SWG didn’t need to reach a consensus of opinion for the document to come out, that these were just recommendations and the group could complete their work without agreement. Dr. Clifford also said that if the SWG could come to an agreement they could split the Standards into two separate documents one being the Standards that would have Part A and the required components to support the rule and a guidance document for section B that would make recommendations but not be required.
Dr. Clifford got off the call and then it was asked of Dr. Klein if she would consider splitting the Standards into two separate documents, and she said she would have to ask her superiors if that is something they would approve of. It was then pointed out that Dr. Clifford had just given the SWG the power to split the document. Dr. Klein then asked if she could hear from other SWG members because she was only hearing from 3 or 4 vocal members that wanted those changes. Other working group members gave varied responses. When Dr. Oedekoven (South Dakota State Vet) was asked for his opinion he stated that he thought if we could put some language into the introduction that clearly defined that the Standards weren’t enforceable and that they were optional that it would go a long ways to easing the concerns of industry. Industry representatives have asked for similar language repeatedly but have not ever gotten any traction for having it added. Dr. Klein asked Dr. Oedekoven if he would draft some language to put into the introduction that would clearly define the Standards and their intent, he agreed to do that.
Dr. Hartmann (MN State Vet) then expressed his opinion that the SWG wasn’t being productive and was only tying up 20 peoples' time and not really accomplishing anything. He asked if industry would be willing to draft a version of the Standards that included not only their comments but language changes to address the remaining concerns we have. Shawn Schafer had already gotten off the call due to a flight but the two remaining representatives stated that industry had such a list of concerns already and that we would welcome to opportunity to show our recommendations for new language. We asked if we could meet with the state vets on the call before the next SWG meeting to get their input and create language that all parties could live with. The state vets on the call agreed and a meeting was scheduled for Monday, April 29, 2013 between industry reps and the state vets. The next SWG meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 6, 2013 and we will start working off the draft that industry and the state vets put forward.
This is a condensed version of today’s meeting but gives you an overview of the direction we have moving forward. Thanks Eric Mohlman
******************************************************************
Just a quick email bringing everyone up to speed on where the Standards Working Group (SWG) is at after the meeting this morning.
This morning’s meeting started out with Dr. Clifford addressing the group and explaining his position and direction for the SWG moving forward. He gave the direction that the SWG was to complete their work within 60 days and after that it would go out to the Federal Register and be put out for comment. He also stated that the Standards were to be control based not eradication based and that the SWG needed to structure the language to carry that out. He also said that the program was to minimize the risk of spread for CWD but to not put herds out of business as there was no money at this time for indemnification. Another point he made was that the SWG was to write in maximum flexibility for the states to run their own program but still minimize the risk of spreading CWD and follow the federal rule.
The question was asked of him if we could remove particular sections such as Part B or other sections if agreement couldn’t be reached. He said he wished we would rework the document before considering throwing out any sections. He also said that the SWG didn’t need to reach a consensus of opinion for the document to come out, that these were just recommendations and the group could complete their work without agreement. Dr. Clifford also said that if the SWG could come to an agreement they could split the Standards into two separate documents one being the Standards that would have Part A and the required components to support the rule and a guidance document for section B that would make recommendations but not be required.
Dr. Clifford got off the call and then it was asked of Dr. Klein if she would consider splitting the Standards into two separate documents, and she said she would have to ask her superiors if that is something they would approve of. It was then pointed out that Dr. Clifford had just given the SWG the power to split the document. Dr. Klein then asked if she could hear from other SWG members because she was only hearing from 3 or 4 vocal members that wanted those changes. Other working group members gave varied responses. When Dr. Oedekoven (South Dakota State Vet) was asked for his opinion he stated that he thought if we could put some language into the introduction that clearly defined that the Standards weren’t enforceable and that they were optional that it would go a long ways to easing the concerns of industry. Industry representatives have asked for similar language repeatedly but have not ever gotten any traction for having it added. Dr. Klein asked Dr. Oedekoven if he would draft some language to put into the introduction that would clearly define the Standards and their intent, he agreed to do that.
Dr. Hartmann (MN State Vet) then expressed his opinion that the SWG wasn’t being productive and was only tying up 20 peoples' time and not really accomplishing anything. He asked if industry would be willing to draft a version of the Standards that included not only their comments but language changes to address the remaining concerns we have. Shawn Schafer had already gotten off the call due to a flight but the two remaining representatives stated that industry had such a list of concerns already and that we would welcome to opportunity to show our recommendations for new language. We asked if we could meet with the state vets on the call before the next SWG meeting to get their input and create language that all parties could live with. The state vets on the call agreed and a meeting was scheduled for Monday, April 29, 2013 between industry reps and the state vets. The next SWG meeting is scheduled for Monday, May 6, 2013 and we will start working off the draft that industry and the state vets put forward.
This is a condensed version of today’s meeting but gives you an overview of the direction we have moving forward. Thanks Eric Mohlman
Joined Oct 2009
3,165 Posts | 1+
upstate ny
Elkrzr said:
So in the end even if the Federal Rule is rewritten itself, Anything taken out can be put back in at the state level if they decide to do that?
That is correct Mike as long as it is not LESS than the Federal Standards. We need to look into becoming our own Wildlife Agency then we would be Exempt from all these Standards!! lol
Joined Oct 2009
3,165 Posts | 1+
upstate ny
stepheck said:
I am with ya on that one! Ny went even further and said they would shy away from doing business with any state that only went with the least of the Federal Rule!
No reason to worry about a Federal Rule if states can make their own game!
Time to get all DNR and DEC people out of our livestock farming operation and thats in the works here at home!
Mike, I know you think the federal rules and standard doesn't matter since your(or mine) state can make it's own rules but most states will eventually follow the standards set by the feds so everyone is on the same page. Yes, your state can do whatever they want but most state animal industry boards and legislators will ask the same question, what rules do the other states follow and the first thing they will look at is the standard. Hopefully eventually you will get someone on one of your animal industry boards that is pro cervid farming and will actually help your industry in NY, maybe not. We are lucky here and our state vet is doing his best to help our industry and keep the DNR out of the rule making. He seems to have alot of common sence but still realizes that we need some kind of a standard so most states are on the same page as far as shipping animals. The reason some states have tighter rules is because they are ruled by an anti-cervid farming majority (DNR, Wildlife Federation, non-landowners, etc.) or people who listen to these groups and actually believe what they say without doing any kind of research of there own.
Joined Oct 2009
3,165 Posts | 1+
upstate ny
sdbigbucks said:
We can only hope i guess but if history plays true it will be Ny setting the standards. We were living with much of the federal rule long before there was one!
Latest update on the CWD program standards:
Eric Mohlman, Charly Seale and I have spent countless hours going through the program standards with a fine tooth comb and have finished making industry's suggested changes to the document. You will be amazed at the amount of language we have suggested striking from the document and the amount of language changes we have suggested. The next step is to present our suggestions to the state vets on Monday for their input. The following Monday, USDA and the wildlife agencies will get a copy for their input. That is when the industry will see if USDA is committed to making this document a control program vs. an eradication program as directed by Dr. Clifford.
I know there are folks out there who are telling people that "Laurie is reading too much into this document and professing that the sky is falling." To those folks I would say, "you haven't read the document like I have and if you did you are not understanding the consequences of this document if left the way it is written." When we have state vets telling us the document will be detrimental to the cervid industry, we know we have a problem.
Just to give you an example of what could happen if the document is published as is without industry's suggested changes, let's say one you sells an animal to Joe Blow. Joe Blow gets CWD in his herd 2 years later. The state where Joe Blow lives will do a trace back on all the animals Joe purchased. Every farm that Joe purchased deer from could be quarantined until they complete their investigation. If the state cannot figure out where the disease originated from, you could be faced with a three year quarantine (2 years plus 3 more years for a 5 year total quarantine.)
The way the federal rule is written and the way we have suggested changing the standards document, an epidemiologist could make an evaluation of the farm the animal originated from and do a farm risk assessment. If the investigation showed that the farm has been monitored for more than 5 years and has CWD tested countless animals, that farm could be released from quarantine without having a 5 year trace back based on that farm's herd CWD status.....this is what I believe the industry can live with and is acceptable to all of us.
As I have stated from the beginning, none of us should be willing to accept a 5 year trace back and trace forward without other factors being used to determine the risk factor. The other huge issue I have with the document is CWD exposed farms being quarantined for 5 or more years without indemnification or the ability to move animals to terminal facilities for depopulation if you happen to have a state agency unwilling to allow movment. We re-worded the document to allow for one or the other option to take place. None of us want to end up like the Brakke's in Iowa....no where to go with their animals and no way to recoup their investment.
There are so many other issues with this document, but I won't get into them in detail....this example gives you a good idea of where the standards document was headed and that was in the wrong direction!
Laurie Seale
Eric Mohlman, Charly Seale and I have spent countless hours going through the program standards with a fine tooth comb and have finished making industry's suggested changes to the document. You will be amazed at the amount of language we have suggested striking from the document and the amount of language changes we have suggested. The next step is to present our suggestions to the state vets on Monday for their input. The following Monday, USDA and the wildlife agencies will get a copy for their input. That is when the industry will see if USDA is committed to making this document a control program vs. an eradication program as directed by Dr. Clifford.
I know there are folks out there who are telling people that "Laurie is reading too much into this document and professing that the sky is falling." To those folks I would say, "you haven't read the document like I have and if you did you are not understanding the consequences of this document if left the way it is written." When we have state vets telling us the document will be detrimental to the cervid industry, we know we have a problem.
Just to give you an example of what could happen if the document is published as is without industry's suggested changes, let's say one you sells an animal to Joe Blow. Joe Blow gets CWD in his herd 2 years later. The state where Joe Blow lives will do a trace back on all the animals Joe purchased. Every farm that Joe purchased deer from could be quarantined until they complete their investigation. If the state cannot figure out where the disease originated from, you could be faced with a three year quarantine (2 years plus 3 more years for a 5 year total quarantine.)
The way the federal rule is written and the way we have suggested changing the standards document, an epidemiologist could make an evaluation of the farm the animal originated from and do a farm risk assessment. If the investigation showed that the farm has been monitored for more than 5 years and has CWD tested countless animals, that farm could be released from quarantine without having a 5 year trace back based on that farm's herd CWD status.....this is what I believe the industry can live with and is acceptable to all of us.
As I have stated from the beginning, none of us should be willing to accept a 5 year trace back and trace forward without other factors being used to determine the risk factor. The other huge issue I have with the document is CWD exposed farms being quarantined for 5 or more years without indemnification or the ability to move animals to terminal facilities for depopulation if you happen to have a state agency unwilling to allow movment. We re-worded the document to allow for one or the other option to take place. None of us want to end up like the Brakke's in Iowa....no where to go with their animals and no way to recoup their investment.
There are so many other issues with this document, but I won't get into them in detail....this example gives you a good idea of where the standards document was headed and that was in the wrong direction!
Laurie Seale
Laurie, I want to thank you and all the others that have worked countless hours on this. The cervid industry is lucky to have people working so hard to make sure we can all stay in business. This industry is too prosperous to have something like the standards document put an end to that. I feel very confident that you guys have the best interest of the entire cervid industry in mind. Thanks again !!
Kurt
Kurt
Thanks Kurt....we certainly are not doing to beat our chests as some folks have accused of us....I have better things to do with my time, but some of us really do care about what happens to this industry. We all have a vested interest and most of us sincerely care about our fellow "deer" friends we have met along the way.
I agree....I could not be more grateful for all the efforts being put forward on our (The Industries) behalf.........thank you...thank you....and thank you.....you can beat your chest all you want as far as I am concerned.........they have left us no other choice!! When backed into a corner there is no other choice but to FIGHT!! Thanks again!!
Joined Oct 2009
3,165 Posts | 1+
upstate ny
Just to give you an example of what could happen if the document is published as is without industry's suggested changes, let's say one you sells an animal to Joe Blow. Joe Blow gets CWD in his herd 2 years later. The state where Joe Blow lives will do a trace back on all the animals Joe purchased. Every farm that Joe purchased deer from could be quarantined until they complete their investigation. If the state cannot figure out where the disease originated from, you could be faced with a three year quarantine (2 years plus 3 more years for a 5 year total quarantine.) Quote
This problem could be solved with paperwork! If all animals and all states did permits when an animal leaves a farm things would be much better.
Truth is Ny is shut down and many other states are doing less business because of the cwd case in Pa. If they were forced to have permits to move animals then they would know where every deer came and went from! Cant do tracebacks if you have nothing to trace from!
The other huge issue I have with the document is CWD exposed farms being quarantined for 5 or more years without indemnification or the ability to move animals to terminal facilities for depopulation if you happen to have a state agency unwilling to allow movment. Quote
Not all states have this plan in the works. If we have a cwd farm we will not be depopulated and will be allowed to move our harvest or animals inside the state with a few rules to be followed...If you can find someone to take them. I believe if a farm ends up with cwd it will not only be the state that shuts you down, It will be your own industry! Cant say i would want a deer from a cwd positive farm on my place reguardless if i have a hunt ranch or not.
This country we live in is in such a hole that to think you will get anything from them for our animals i believe is a stretch. I myself talk to my state vet every week and i can tell ya that he says the same thing. He believes the federal rule has room for changes but he also cautioned to...Watch for what you ask for! Any state can...And some will..Put any rule that is changed on the federal side back into play on the state side!
This problem could be solved with paperwork! If all animals and all states did permits when an animal leaves a farm things would be much better.
Truth is Ny is shut down and many other states are doing less business because of the cwd case in Pa. If they were forced to have permits to move animals then they would know where every deer came and went from! Cant do tracebacks if you have nothing to trace from!
The other huge issue I have with the document is CWD exposed farms being quarantined for 5 or more years without indemnification or the ability to move animals to terminal facilities for depopulation if you happen to have a state agency unwilling to allow movment. Quote
Not all states have this plan in the works. If we have a cwd farm we will not be depopulated and will be allowed to move our harvest or animals inside the state with a few rules to be followed...If you can find someone to take them. I believe if a farm ends up with cwd it will not only be the state that shuts you down, It will be your own industry! Cant say i would want a deer from a cwd positive farm on my place reguardless if i have a hunt ranch or not.
This country we live in is in such a hole that to think you will get anything from them for our animals i believe is a stretch. I myself talk to my state vet every week and i can tell ya that he says the same thing. He believes the federal rule has room for changes but he also cautioned to...Watch for what you ask for! Any state can...And some will..Put any rule that is changed on the federal side back into play on the state side!
Mike, I understand completely about states making rules more stringent than the federal rules and standards....Wisconsin producers lived with the most stringent rules of all the states for the past 10 years and that is why our application was the first to be accepted by USDA. What some of you seem to be missing is if we don't relax these standards by making them less stringent, states would not have a choice but to follow them. At our meeting in DC with Dr Clifford and the last working group conference call, Dr. Clifford has directed Dr. Klein to make these standards optional guidelines for states to follow so we have also included re worded that language in the document to reflect Dr. Clifford's directive of the group.
States that have a great working relationship with their state vets will be fine with an optional document....states that have their DNR's involved and state vets that are not easy to work with are in deep trouble no matter what....I wish all of those states the best....all I can say is we are trying our best to make the document as producer friendly as possible.
States that have a great working relationship with their state vets will be fine with an optional document....states that have their DNR's involved and state vets that are not easy to work with are in deep trouble no matter what....I wish all of those states the best....all I can say is we are trying our best to make the document as producer friendly as possible.
Joined Oct 2009
3,165 Posts | 1+
upstate ny
Laurie Seale said:
Im not so sure of that one. Ny has been doing about all of the federal rule and then some from day one. I think if more effort was put forth by the states to prove that the dnr and dec of some states have no right being involved in livestock we might get a little headway. Fighting a federal rule that can be rewritten by the states may not be so productive.
All states are not going to live with a federal rule and all states will not use the minimum of the federal rule. We have to find the middle ground within our own states.
Mike, i have read your post for about three months now and over and over you tell everyone how bad New York is to the deerfarmers. The federal rules aren't nothing compared to what you guys live under and so on. Your always on here complaining about your state. My question to you is what is this saying "be careful for what you ask for "?First question, Can you live with the standards the way they are and EVER survive? Second, if New York is worst than the federal standards do you want everyone to have to suffer just because your state is so restrictive? Give me one negative thing that can happen from cleaning up these standards to make the less restrictive on producers at the state level. Meaning, don't tie up the hands of state vets that can use good common sense to run the situation in the best way they see fit. I don't want my state vet to have to call the USDA to figure out what she needs to do in this situation. These standards have NEVER been thought to protect the deerfarmers from their states. These are minimums set for the protocol for the states to follow. That means ANY state can set more harsh rules BUT at least we can take care of that at home on a STATE level. Those rules can be manipulated by electing people into political office that represent your best interest! If you don't like New York then move out of the state or instead of getting on here complaining maybe you should do something about it. Don't get on here and have the audacity to ***** at the people that is trying to help out this industry. I don't know how you guys do things up your way but in the south we have a little more respect.
respectfully,
kurt
respectfully,
kurt
Joined Oct 2009
3,165 Posts | 1+
upstate ny
kurthumphrey said:
Kurt you can do things any way you want and i will do things any way i want! You do like my posts...Move On! Yes we have been living with the rules the way they are and surving just fine! That was untill states that have rules like Pa and by the sounds of it what a few others want and move animals all over the state with any tracking of them!
I will also let ya know that i am trying to do something about the Ny problem and that will to be another Texas! Then we can still do business in our state and sell outside our state! Best of both worlds! Kinda sucks but atleast Ny deer farms can still pay their bills!
I dont believe i bitched as you say about anything they think they want to do.I believe we said yes on every phone call with the aca we have been on! I only saw 3 names listed on the first post. Seems to be a few missing!
I said what i thought and what i heard from our state vet. I will have the audacity to get on here and say what i think reguardless of what you think. When this board becomes a private board then maybe that will change!
Maybe some of us know a little more than others.
Similar threads
