Chronic Wasting Disease Changing Big Game Hunting

Chronic Wasting Disease Changing Big Game Hunting

As time moves forward, things change. For hunters, sportsmen, and landowners, times are changing. Most people have seen all the tremendous positive advances through the last 30 years of wildlife study.  There has been better habitat, better wildlife quality, better populations. During the past few decades, the idea of wildlife management and conservation has truly taken off. Now, however, that model of quality wildlife management is under attack. Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) is rewriting big game hunting as we know it, causing new regulations, more problems, and unhealthy wildlife.  

There are a lot of common questions that sportsmen, hunters, landowners, and others have about CWD. Even though the disease has been around for 50 years, it has only been during the past decade that the public has really been made aware of CWD.

What is Chronic Wasting Disease?

CWD is a Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathy (TSE) that affects the Cervidae family (CWDA 2017).  CWD is a type of prion disease that attacks the brain, similar to mad cow disease. In North America, CWD has only been found in cervids, mule deer, white-tailed deer, elk, and moose. CWD is a fatal disease that destroys the brain by mutating the prions that slowly reduce critical brain functions (CWDA 2017).  This picture shows a white-tailed deer infected with CWD. CWD has many stages in whitetail deer; this deer is in one of the final stages of the disease (NDA 2017).  When a cervid is infected with CWD and the animal progresses through the disease, it will experience, severe weight loss and extreme behavior changes (CWDA 2017).

(Dr. Terry Kreeger of Wyoming Game and Fish Department)

Where has CWD been found?

CWD was first documented in captive mule deer in 1967. Today, CWD has been found in 24 states and 3 Canadian provinces and involves both wild and captive cervids. In the United States, 21 states have found CWD in free ranging cervids. There are 160 counties that have been deemed infected by CWD by their state agencies. (CWDA 2017)

                                                                                    (CWDA 2017)

How does CWD spread?

This is one of the largest problems of CWD. Since CWD is a prion disease, prions are proteins, and proteins are found throughout the entire the body. CWD is passed through direct contact with the prions. When a cervid dies or poops, it is estimated that the prions will persist in the soil for up to 5 years. (CWDA 2017) Recently, biologists and scientists have discovered that if a cervid’s prions are in the soil, a plant can carry the prions. (NDA 2017) For example, if clover starts growing where a CWD positive deer died, and another deer comes along and eats that clover, that deer is now infected with CWD. Another example: a hunter from Pennsylvania goes on an elk hunt in Colorado; he travels to one of the infected counties for his hunt. If that hunter walks through an area where CWD infected prions are in the soil, those prions are on his shoes. Now, anywhere he travels with those shoes, he is spreading prions. Scientists and biologists are still working on trying to find a way to kill the prions once in the soil. They have learned that the prions will continue to persist even through fire. Quality Deer Management Association (QDMA) and white-tailed deer biologist Kip Adams believes that we are still 10 years or more away from finding a way to stop the prions from surviving in the soil.

What are the biggest threats?

CWD poses a lot of significant threats, risks, and concerns. The biggest challenge to CWD is that the only way to tell if that cervid is infected with CWD is through brain stem research or, if the animal is in its final stage, you can tell through physical characteristics. Another major risk is that scientists have not concluded if you can consume the animal if it is infected with CWD. Since this disease is similar to forms of other diseases that can be transferred to humans, that is a major health risk. Another major concern is for farmers. What if CWD can be transmitted to livestock? What if CWD can be transmitted to the corn crop, infecting people and deer that eat the corn infected by CWD? What if all these risks are true? The potential economic impact on the agricultural industry cannot be ignored. Chronic Wasting Disease doesn’t only affect hunters and sportsman, it affects everyone.

There’s a lot of time, money, and research going into CWD. There have been many national organizations coming together to help fight this disease, including Mule Deer Foundation, Quality Deer Management Association, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and others. This is a major event that is spreading across the country and changing the way sportsmen hunt big game. It is threatening farming; it is having an impact on everyone.

It is critical that we do our part to find a way to prevent the spread of Chronic Wasting Disease. As wildlife conservationists, our goal is to protect and manage wildlife for future generations. If CWD truly spreads nationally, it could prohibit the success of quality wildlife populations. Step up and help manage, listen to your states’ and agencies’ laws on consuming and transporting corvids in those infected areas, so that we can do our part to help conserve wildlife for future generations.  

Brandon Witmer

Citations:

Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance (CWDA). 2017. Chronic Wasting Disease Info.

<www.cwd-info.org>. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.

National Deer Alliance (NDA). 2017. National Deer Alliance on CWD.

<www.nationaldeeralliance.com>. Accessed 25 Feb 2017.      

Native trout compete for space, money and love

Can you name Pennsylvania’s native trout? Odds are that if you’ve spent any time fishing for trout, you have probably caught more nonnatives than natives. Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout are the most common and popular Salmonid sport fish in the state, with the native Brook Trout largely taking a back seat (Lake Trout are also native to Lake Erie but we won’t get in to that here). Rainbow Trout are only native to the Pacific Rim region of North America while Brown Trout are of European origin. For this post, we’ll focus on the far reaching influence of Rainbow Trout over the native Brook Trout in Pennsylvania.

So why are Brook Trout robbed of the spotlight? They are a gorgeous fish, they fight well, and they are challenging to catch. Surely this fish should be prized by anglers and managers alike? But that’s not necessarily the case.

According to the PA Fish and Boat Commission’s stocking summary for 2017, over 2 million Rainbow Trout will be stocked in Pennsylvania’s streams and lakes this year, while only 491,240 Brook Trout will be stocked. This huge discrepancy is due to the ease of raising Rainbow Trout in a hatchery setting and their survival success after being stocked into a natural setting.

Rainbows are a “gateway fish,” able to survive in more habitats around the state because of their higher temperature tolerance and thereby are providing more angling opportunity for more people throughout the state. And that’s a good thing, more people caring about fishing and water issues leads to a more involved public that is invested in the resource. The problem comes when those that care only see value in the Rainbows and begin to see less value in the native species that belong in the region.

To ensure the persistence of the native Brook Trout, several things should be put in motion. I feel that the PA Fish and Boat Commission should do a better job of promoting the native fishes throughout the state. If the public better understands the role that Brook Trout play in the natural systems that they love to fish, they may be more supportive of their restoration.

Now I’m not saying that we need to get rid of or stop raising Rainbow Trout. I like catching them as much as the next person. But I’d rather go the extra mile to catch a native and wild Brook Trout. Rainbows are fine in those slower warmer streams closer to people’s homes and provide a very valuable fishing resource and get people excited about fishing. But I do believe that Brook Trout need some help. They belong in the cold, fast, headwater streams and many of these are in need of some degree of habitat restoration to combat rising water temperatures (they belong in the larger invaded streams too but those would be incredibly costly to restore as Brook Trout habitat).

More time and effort should be spent on habitat restoration. Brook Trout in the headwater areas are struggling to survive. Many of these streams are flowing along newly expanded state forest roads that are now being utilized by the Marcellus Shale industry. As a result, these roads are contributing more sediment to the streams as well as salts used to treat the roads in the winter time; both of these spell disaster for Brook Trout. These pollutants can be mitigated by planting more native vegetation along the roads. Denser vegetation will serve to trap those particles and let them leach into the stream more slowly and pulses of sediment or salt can be avoided.

Have you noticed that PA hasn’t been receiving as much snow as it should? This has a huge impact on the temperature that streams achieve as the summer progresses. Without the snowpack in the spring to reduce stream temperatures prior to the summer heat, small streams are likely reaching higher temperatures than normal and may become inhospitable for the Brook Trout. But there are things that can be done to aid the Brookie’s survival in spite of the lack of snowpack. Forest cover is a huge factor. Many of these headwater streams are reliant on the Eastern Hemlock for shade. However, these trees are under attack from the invasive Wooly Adelgid. As the Hemlock lose their needles and die, more sunlight reaches the stream. Restoration efforts could be as simple as planting more Hemlock trees or another water tolerant tree along the stream bed to provide shade. Another restoration measure is to deepen the stream by adding logs across the water channel to create plunge pools which create refugia for Brook Trout to survive the summer heat.

Native fish are few and far between; maybe some money should be used for habitat restoration instead of growing more fish? So many of the stocked trout in Pennsylvania die over the course of the summer due to rising water temperatures, even the Rainbows and Browns’ temperature limits are exceeded. Is it sustainable to keep dumping these fish into the streams and lakes only to have them die off if they aren’t caught and taken home for dinner? I would love to see the Fish and Boat turn some of the funding for hatcheries into money for habitat restoration. Habitat helps everyone. An improvement in habitat may be costly, but the benefits in years to come would be enormous as these aquatic ecosystems could function as they should.

Cindy Nau is a Penn State alumnus who has spent several field seasons working in the Rocky Mountain west on fisheries technician jobs. She is currently a graduate student at University of Wisconsin- Green Bay, pursuing a master’s degree on stream ecology (fingers crossed that the Burbot cooperate). She is passionate about the preservation and restoration of whole native ecosystems.

Coal Mining and Freshwater Streams

 With the recent passing of bills from the government; a bill was signed with providing surface mining runoff to inhabit our beautiful freshwater streams. The bill that was signed was H.J. Res. 38; it was signed on February 16, 2017. This bill would no longer help to protect waterways from coal mining waste in the United States of America. With this recent signing, there will be no protection on the headwaters of steams when there is removal of mountain top coal in the United States of America. Headwaters are one of the most important part of the waterways. It fuels the streams and rivers all over the United States. Mountain top coal removal will only bring more debris into our local freshwater streams hurting the aquatic life we have today.

Figure 1 Stream in central Pennsylvania

When it comes to mountains, a natural elevation of Earth’s surface that rises to a summit; everything is going to run off to a shallower elevation. These shallower elevations are called valleys. In most cases they’re waterways that lay at the bottom of these valleys, known as streams and rivers. Figure 1 shows a small native stream in central Pennsylvania. This stream is one of 3.5 million miles of streams and rivers combined in the United States of America. In Pennsylvania, this small native stream is one of 85,000 miles of combined streams and rivers. These statics show that almost every valley contains a stream or river at the bottom of a mountain. Whatever happens on top of the mountain will affect what’s on the bottom of the mountain in this case, it would be the streams and rivers.

With mountain top coal removal, this small stream in central Pennsylvania that contains the Pennsylvania state fish (Brook trout) will become polluted with surface run off and debris. Mountain top coal removal is responsible for burying more than 2,000 miles of Appalachian headwaters streams. Acid mine drainage is a major fact in polluting streams and rivers in Pennsylvania and the rest of the states. Acid mine drainage is the mixture of water and unearthed rocks such as coal. This mixture contains high levels of heavy metals that are leaked out of abandoned mines. Since mountain top coal removal will happen on top, this mixture will run down the side of the mountain and end up in the streams and rivers. Polluting everything in that stream or river. Bringing the coal industry back will bring all the coal jobs back including strip mining. Strip mining also has a major impact on the streams and rivers. Strip mining clears everything on top of a mountain. Strip mining also uses a blasting technique to reach the coal. This technique throw debris into the streams and rivers in the valley. Clearing everything out, leaves a layer of topsoil. When it rains, this topsoil disturbs the streams and river. Blocking the flow of the water and creating floods. It also disturbs the aquatic and plant life. These are some of the examples that can pollute the streams and rivers in the United States. Every one of these examples, can alter the quality of water in a stream and river. In most cases, it will decrease the quality of water.

Figure 2 Polluted stream from mountain top coal removal

Not only does mountain top coal removal hurt the streams and rivers, it also has a big impact on the aquatic life in the streams and rivers. The life cycle of aquatic life can be altered by the quality of the water causing populations to decrease becoming threatened or endangered. A good indicator of water quality is the fish. For example native brook trout prefer water quality around a pH of 6.5 to 8.0. The closer to a pH of 7 the better off native brook trout are. However, the pollutants from mining causes the streams and rivers to decrease in quality causing fish to die off. A study was done in 2014, showing that fish populations in a stream down from a site of mountain top coal removal were reduce by two-thirds between 1999 and 2011. This study took place in the Appalachia region mainly in West Virginia, Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Macroinvertebrates are also impacted by this type of mining. Doug Wood a biologist for West Virginia’s Department of Environmental Protection, found evidence that an entire order of mayfly vanished from a stream that was down from a mountain top mining site. Finally, what about salamanders living by the streams and river. Filling in the valleys with mining debris will only result in less salamander life. I do not know about you, but I grew up looking for salamanders by streams. It was one thing I enjoyed doing when being outside in nature.

Figure 3 Brook Trout

Other people may have the view point of job creation; although by passing and signing bills in congress, we will allow the coal mining to start up again. Bringing back the coal mining business will increase jobs for the United States of America. There is no doubt that it would create jobs in the future. It may even bring the coal towns that once ruled the rural areas in West Virginia and Virginia. This would help us with the unemployment rate. Some people may look at coal mining as the answer of all their problems. So, what if a coal mining site hurts one little stream, at least I will be able to work and make a pay check for my family. Everyone has a different view on this issue.

Mountain top coal removal contains many impact on the United States. Impacts such as a decrease in water quality, creating jobs, polluting streams and rivers, and killing life forms. Mountain top coal removal will only bring more debris into our local freshwater streams hurting the aquatic life we have today. Can you imagine trout will be spawning among coal mining waste such as toxic heavy metals? I ask every reader out there, what is your view point on mountain top coal removal, is it good or bad?

Literature Cited:

Appalachian Voices. 2013. Ecological impacts of mountaintop removal. <

http://appvoices.org/end-mountaintop-removal/ecology/>. Accessed 24 Feb 2017.

Forbes. 2017. Hey anglers, get ready to enjoy some toxic heavy metals with your trout fishing. <

https://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2017/02/17/hey-anglers-get-ready-to-enjoy-

some-toxic-heavy-metals-with-your-trout-fishing/#22ecc45bc8aa>.  Accessed 18

Feb 2017.

Greenpeace International. 2016. About coal mining impacts. <

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/climate-change/coal/Coal-mining-

impacts/>.  Accessed 20 Feb 2017

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission [PFBC]. 2017. Fishing. <

http://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fishing/Pages/default.aspx>. Accessed 20 Feb 2017.

United States Environmental Protection Agency [EPA]. 2013. Rivers and streams. <

https://archive.epa.gov/water/archive/web/html/index-17.html>.  Accessed 20 Feb 2017.

Imagines Cited:

Figure 1: Chelby Sherwood

Figure 2: Appalachian Voices: http://appvoices.org/end-mountaintop-removal/ecology/

Figure 3: Chelby Sherwood

Be Careful What You Wish For

It’s no doubt that the current political climate has many natural resource professionals on edge. Jobs are being cut, budgets are dwindling, and some of us are even questioning whether we will be able to release the results of research we have dedicated our lives to- research that is vital to heal the wounds that remain after centuries of environmental neglect.

Believe it or not, that is not a political statement. It is almost un-American how little I keep up with current events, especially in politics. And, I try to not let my opinions be swayed by my friends, family, social media, or fly-by-night news sources.  To do politics “right” requires a lot of fact checking and research, and so I don’t have all the information necessary to form an opinion about many hot topic issues. But, when politics enter your wheelhouse, you feel a little more compelled to speak out.

Recently, the House of Representatives and the Senate (of which Republicans own the majority vote) both repealed a ruling from the Obama administration that prevented coal companies from dumping mining debris into streams. The regulation also required pre-mining assessment reports of the ecosystem and assurance that mining activities would cause no hydrological disturbance. The original law was meant, in large part, to regulate mountaintop removal mining where (as the name suggests) entire mountain tops are blown up to access coal seams that lie underneath.  As you can imagine, this creates a lot of debris, and most commonly that debris was dumped into surrounding valleys.  And, you know what else are in valleys?  Streams. An estimated 2,000 miles of headwater streams have been buried by coal debris since the 1990s.

Debris is rarely dumped into rivers and larger streams, but rather the target is small, sometime intermittent headwaters. The streams, though tiny, hold some of the highest diversity of fish (including brook trout), macroinvertebrates, and amphibians in the United States. Many of these species are threatened or endangered, and are highly endemic; occupying only a few streams in the entire world. Yet, with a couple dumps of the backhoe, coal debris fills in valleys and completely removes entire streams (and the organisms in them) from the map.

But, the effects are felt even downstream where water quality is degraded with high concentrations of heavy metals, high conductivity (a measure of the concentration of ions in the water), and levels of some chemicals (such as selenium) that are toxic to fish and even lethal to laboratory-tested animals. And, it’s not only aquatic life that is harmed as terrestrial species (like birds) that eat fish and macroinvertebrates are poisoned by toxins in their prey. Unfortunately, once mining debris is dumped into a valley, ecosystem recovery is very difficult to achieve.  Even decades later, areas downstream of a dumping site have significantly fewer fish and macroinvertebrates than reference control reaches.

Why Congress repealed this “dumping regulation” is debatable.  Some believe it was an easy target, as it was passed in mid-December making it repealable under the Congressional Review Act (which, by the way, could soon cause many other newly inked regulations to be overturned).  Others believe that the bill was unfair to coal companies and it made it significantly more expensive, and even impossible, to mine many sites adjacent to streams. If nothing else, most agreed that the wording of the regulation was hopelessly complex, leaving many to feel like it was nothing more than bureaucratic red tape.

News that the dumping regulation was being repealed had many rejoicing at the thought of a resurgence of big coal, particularly in Virginia, West Virginia, and Kentucky where coal mining was once much more prevalent than today. I’m one of the first to recognize that human-environment interactions are give and take. Sometimes situations arise were we can’t prevent negative impacts on the environment if we are to complete a project that, ultimately, is for human good.

But, reckless coal mining, the type of coal mining that will be permissible if the dumping regulation is repealed, is not one.  In my former life I was a Master’s student at Virginia Tech studying an undescribed species of minnow found almost exclusively in watersheds with mining activity. Brought to the area to study fish, I found myself equally interested in the social dynamics of mining. These boom-and-bust towns are shells of their former selves, and hidden beneath the overgrown shrubs and collapsing buildings are signs of a once vibrant community. Remaining families depend almost entirely on coal to put food on their tables, and in recent years lucrative positions in mining have become increasingly rare. These families are proud of their heritage of hard work and dedication.  At the same time, they are praying for assistance, and I can only image that repeal of the dumping regulation (and several other regulations pertaining to natural resource extraction) has many excited about the potential for revitalization and new, better career opportunities. A “way out” of hard times that have fallen.

I cannot pretend to know what is best for these coal communities. Coal is a culture, one with which I cannot relate.  Nor can I predict with any certainty the economic ramifications that repeal of the dumping regulation could have. But, I do know that the idea of coal saving these communities has been oversold. Though many believe declines in coal production are the result of more stringent regulations (like the dumping regulation) the truth is that it has been outpriced by natural gas and phased out by a trend towards using more sustainable energy sources. Further, while repeal of mining regulations could increase production, it will also likely result in increased prevalence of illnesses and cancers that are common in coal communities when drinking water becomes contaminated. So the more likely reality, the reality that seems hidden from many discussions recently, is that increased, less regulated coal mining will result in short-term increases in coal production, and much longer-term decreases to human and ecosystem health.

As of today, the repeal of the dumping regulation awaits President Trump’s signature. If he signs, as he is expected to do, decades of restoration and reclamation and improvements to rural living conditions will be threatened.

 

Shannon White is a PhD student in the Ecology Program at Penn State.  Her research approaches fish conservation from an individual level by trying to see how specific genes and behaviors respond to climate change. When not holding ugly brown trout (their nonnative...don't get her started), she's usually found at the office at odd hours of the morning posting to her own website, www.thetroutlook.com.