SNP CWD Plan Comment Period Extended-Meeting In Front Royal Tonight

Due to a glitch in communications I was not aware that the period for commenting on Shenandoah National Park's CWD Management Plan had been extended until this morning.  A public meeting will be held this evening  at the Warren County Community Center, 538 Villa Avenue in Front Royal, Va. Read about it in the Shenandoah National Park News release below:

This also extends the time for public comment until January 30, 2015.  The additional public meeting was scheduled and the comment period extended to address concerns by several landowners who own land adjacent to the park about the proposed CWD plan.

Shenandoah National Park Holds Additional Public Meeting and Reopens Comment Period for ChronicWasting Disease Management Plan 

 Date: January 7, 2015 In response to a request from several park neighbors, Shenandoah National Park will hold an additional public meeting on the park's proposed Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) response plan.The meeting will be held at 7:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 22, 2015, at the Warren County Community Center, 538 Villa Avenue.Dr. Jenny Powers, National Park Service Wildlife Veterinarian and CWD expert, will make a presentation on the history and biology of the disease.Jim Schaberl, Shenandoah National Park Chief of Natural and Cultural Resources, will present the park's proposed plan.Park Superintendent Jim Northup will be available to answer questions. Experts from the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries will also be available to answer questions on CWD actions outside the park. Following the meeting, the park will reopen the comment period for eight days.

Shenandoah National Park management is proposing to amend the approved 2013Chronic Wasting Disease Detection/Assessment Plan, Shenandoah National Park to include response actions necessary to address chronic wasting disease (CWD) within five miles of or within the park. Although CWD has not been detected in the park, it has been documented approximately 12 miles from the park's northern boundary. The spread of the disease into the park appears imminent, and park staff has determined that a plan for managing the disease is needed. CWD is a serious, non-native disease which threatens deer populations, related natural resources, and visitor experiences at Shenandoah National Park. The proposed plan amendment calls for the lethal removal of deer within specific developed areas of Shenandoah National Park to reduce the likelihood of CWD establishment and decrease the disease's progression within the park.

The draft amendment/EA for this project has been prepared in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A series of public meetings on this topic were held in November, and the public was given an opportunity to comment during a 30-day comment period which ended on December 10, 2014.With the addition of another meeting the public will now be able to comment again on the draft plan from January 22 until January 30, 2015.The draft plan is available for review and comment online at http:parkplanning.nps.gov/shencwd.Comments may also be sent to: Superintendent, Shenandoah National Park, Attn: CWD Response Amendment/EA, 3655 US Highway, 211 East, Luray, VA 22835.

For more information about Chronic Wasting Disease, please visit  http:wwww.nps.gov/shen/naturescience/cwd.htm.

Shenandoah National Park -The Assault On The Whitetail Continues

When I first heard of the CWD study at Shenandoah National Park back in 2012, the first thought that entered my mind was that this was just the preliminary step toward a drastic herd reduction in the park. As it turns out it seems my worst fears are going to be more than realized, but for some time park officials seemed to  divert attention away from what they really intended to do and to downplay the severity of it.

In a News Release dated December 5, 2013  SNP officials announced that their  staff had completed a planning process for a Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) Detection and Assessment Plan.  This followed the park  receiving a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) decision. The purpose of the CWD plan at that point was to establish a framework in which SNP officials could determine whether CWD was present in the deer population within the park and if was found to determine the number of infected animals and their location in the park.  This would all come together in a   management plan to deal with CWD in the park and to co-operate with the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries in detecting the disease, etc.

The news release went on to list four options for the detection and/or assessment of CWD within the park.,
 1. Opportunistic sampling (mostly testing road-killed deer)
 2. Targeted surveillance(looking for and sampling sick/emaciated deer)
 3. Enhanced live-testing (live-sampling healthy appearing)
  4. Lethal removal

At this point the lethal removal option appeared to be downplayed as the third paragraph of the news letter states, "Sampling will occur in areas of the park within 30 miles of a known CWD case. If needed to achieve a statistically valid sample size for the detection or assessment of CWD, the park may lethally sample up to 150 deer over a three year period for detection or approximately 70 over a two year period to determine prevalence and distribution. The park will only lethally remove deer for sample after exhausting all other non-lethal sampling methods (e.g., enhanced opportunistic (mostly road-kill), enhanced live-testing, and hunter-harvest/road-kill testing by the VDGIF within the surveillance area).The park will primarily sample and remove deer near the closest developed areas (e.g. Dickey Ridge, Mathews Arm, Skyland,and Big Meadows). Deer will be sampled from developed areas because these areas have higher deer densities and are, therefore, at greater risk of CWD introduction and spread .Lethal removal sampling would occur during periods of low visitation."

Pay special attention to this sentence from the paragraph above, "The park will only lethally remove deer for sample after exhausting all other non-lethal sampling methods".  If someone read this in a positive frame of mind, it tended to relieve their concerns as it gave the impression that lethal removal was extremely unlikely to happen or be minor in nature if it did,  but if we jump forward to late 2014 and read the SNP  CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE DETECTION AND ASSESSMENT PLAN AMENDMENT of October 2014 it becomes clear that they did employ lethal sampling methods on park deer or at least they certainly seem to say that they did.

If one goes to page 21 and looks  under the heading, "Impacts of plan with addition of proposed response actions" they state, "As previously analyzed (NPS 2012a), the current detection and assessment actions have some adverse impacts on visitor use and experience when visitors are unable to access certain areas of the park because area closures are required for safety reasons during lethal removal for sampling". They go on to point out on page 22 that "The addition of the proposed response actions may require additional area closures to conduct density reductions but these are not expected to noticeably change the level of impact on visitors beyond what was previously analyzed for detection and assessment actions, alone." Even if one reads the document quite closely there are times that you are not sure if they are writing about something that has already happened or if they are stating that something that is to happen in the future will result in little difference in visitor experience, over something that has already been planned for the future, but not yet implemented--it is that vague. .

The conclusion on page 23 does a good job of summing it up; however, and seems to leave little doubt that that they have already removed deer by lethal means when beginning with the second sentence they say "The adverse impacts of area closures for density reductions would not be noticeably different than what visitors currently experience when areas are closed for lethal removals for detection and assessment. Closures for density reductions may be somewhat longer or at different times of the year, but the overall adverse impacts would not change from existing, either individually or cumulatively".

Concerning negative impacts, the conclusion states, "The main difference as a result of adding response actions is decreased opportunities for visitors to regularly view and photograph deer in favored locations such as Big Meadows. Deer would still be present but in smaller numbers, on a less regular basis, and may be less tolerant of human presence. This would probably reduce the enjoyment of visitors who come to the park specifically to see deer in Big Meadows and other favorite viewing areas.  It goes on to justify the herd reductions by pointing out that, "This would not reduce the overall visitor experience of the park because deer densities in these areas would be more similar to natural deer densities that occur throughout the park, which is in keeping with the natural conditions and experience that the park was established to conserve and promote."

The conclusion sections ends with, " Public outreach and information may promote greater understanding of the need for the response actions, alleviating some of the adverse impacts".

 Thoughts  From Blog Readers

 Wildlife biologist, Kirk, commented on my last post, . " If your interest is in the conservation of the whitetail herd, let's agree that the current density of WT's on NPS property from Shenandoah to Gettysburg is somewhere between 20 and 50 TIMES the threshold for "high likelihood" of transfer of CWD as it's practiced in much tougher, sparse terrain out west. Not 20%. 2000%! And that number is likely pretty low.
I'm not arguing this as a hunter (Lord knows that hunting on NPS ground is a debacle at best), but as an actual wildlife biologist. Photography is important. Visitors (and fee payers) are important. But there's absolutely nothing in anyone's action plan to reasonably react to a 50% or 80% herd die off."

(I assume from this that he is meaning that  a 50% or 80% mortality rate from CWD is possible  rather than the lower rates usually reported  in states like Colorado are because of the much higher deer density in SNP.)

Kirk goes on to say, "There's no "non harsh" way through this, is what I'm proposing. Thanks for bringing up the issue, I hadn't heard about this, and I'm well versed in NPS' typical aversion to lethal management of anything, even exotic 30 foot long pythons."

Kirk  also made a follow-up comment-" Also keep in mind that all of these actions occur in context of multiple, often competing, management plans for the NPS units. NPS has been burned badly in court numerous times for not aggressively acting to take precautions to preserve designated habitats and species from "forsseable" threats. Whitetails are at a high density on NPS lands, we all agree on that, and guess what, they don't eat the invasive plants."

A Virginia wildlife photographer, Larry W. Brown, who is very familiar with SNP said, "To state that this is a bad situation for the SNP whitetails would be a major understatement. The ignorance of the SNP wildlife management officials to continue on with these herd reduction plans makes no sense whatsoever. There have been 7 known cases of CWD in that county since 2009, so if CWD was as bad as they make it out to be, wouldn't the deer populations in that area have already suffered? And have already spread into SNP? Since 2002, over 7,600 deer in Virginia have been tested for CWD. The Va DGIF has diagnosed ONLY 7 positive cases of CWD in Virginia. The statistics speak for themselves.

Another Virginia wildlife photographer, Jim Fields, who I first met on A Sunday summer  morning in Big Meadows back in the film photography day,s  chimed in with a very relevant comment, " SNP is using CWD as a scare tactic to convince the unknowing public that an 80% cull is needed in Big meadows. If CWD was a valid concern the parks efforts would focused at the North Entrance of the Park nearer to the CWD positive specimens. As Larry mentioned Virginia does not have mass numbers of deer killing over from CWD. There has only been 7 CWD positive deer found to date and none of these were in SNP.

As you know in the Amended plan there is no mention of herd management with consideration given to keeping genetically strong specimens or proper buck to doe ratios to produce quality bucks, does, and fawns for future generations. This is purely a kill plan to eliminate mass deer numbers specifically in Big Meadows.

Additionally If you visit SNP you will find no information regarding this subject displayed for the public at any of the park facilities. I purposely went in the Byrd visitor center yesterday I was handed a copy of the press release from behind the counter only after I inquired about the deer reduction in BM. There was no copies of the amended plan available at the center."

Another wildlife enthusiast,  Kaleen, said, " The Shenandoah National Park situation is heartbreaking. I have been going to the park for over 40 years and have loved and photographed the deer and other animals all that time. The park's plan is insane and illogical. There is not enough evidence to support such drastic action, and the only way to completely prevent this disease in the future would be to eliminate all the deer, which the current park plan would almost do. The park has ruined wildlife photography, to say nothing of the suffering, evident in photos, of the collared deer. The poor deer do not stand a chance, and this planned nighttime shooting will lead to poor shots and injured and suffering deer. The whole plan is senseless and will do nothing to prevent the disease from ever reaching the park, which is not likely anyway. The park officials seem to have lost their minds. They should take a lesson from Pennsylvania's game management."

My Thoughts

When we sift to the bottom of all of this it boils down to the fact that they are willing to sacrifice 80% of the deer herd at the popular whitetail areas such as Big Meadows because, according to Larry Brown , 7 deer have tested positive for CWD in the State of Virginia and this is confirmed by The Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries Website.

Remember they intend to Shoot 80% of the Big Meadows herd because of  SEVEN (7) positive deer in the entire state of Virginia, although it does appear that they need to find a positive deer within the 5 mile trigger distance from the park or within the park itself to begin the 80% reduction. According to a chart on page 8 this means the removal of 130-150 deer from the Big Meadows area to match the populations density of surrounding areas, yet  already  reports are surfacing of experienced outdoors people seeing only a few deer in the Big Meadows Area. Does this mean that a substantial number of deer have already been removed from the Big Meadows area to provide the samples needed for lethal CWD testing if enough specimens were not available from non-lethal methods?

Of course the fear is that CWD will spread and become established resulting in a permanent herd reduction if nothing is done, but even the most optimistic official in my experience will not contend that CWD response plans as implemented by any conservation or federal agency has any chance of stopping the disease--only in slowing the spread of it. 

Remember-To slow the spread of the disease down they plan to shoot up to 80% or the herd to prevent a loss that in a worst case scenario MAY reach 80% of the herd, but would more likely top around 30% and this is assuming that the disease becomes widely established in the park, which is by no means a given.

It is always easy to criticize, but much harder to be responsible for a plan of action, so it is fair to ask what would you do if you were in charge of the situation?

 If I were responsible for the management of the SNP whitetail herd I would manage the herd much as it was before the inception of the CWD study of 2012.  Only visibly sick or injured animals would be removed from the herd and there would be no preemptive shooting.  Expenditure of funds and efforts would be geared toward finding a cure for the disease if possible. It may be that this is something like the gypsy moth was with the oak forests and it will run its' course regardless of efforts applied to stopping it.

As it stands,  The SNP plan is currently being implemented and future amendments will likely meet with approval.  At this writing it appears that the outstanding whitetail viewing and photography  at SNP are over for my lifetime and perhaps for all time although it is to be hoped that at some point in the future responsible people will shake their head at the way war was declared on the whitetail deer in the name of saving them from CWD.

A special  thanks to those who submitted comments  on the November 12th post "Herd Reduction Looms For Shenandoah National Park Whitetails, which are featured in today's post.

Originally Published at Pennsylvania Wildlife Photographer by Willard Hill.

Herd Reduction Looms For Shenandoah National Park Whitetails

Future Uncertain For Whitetail Deer

It seems there is no good news these days if ones' primary interest is big game photography--especially whitetail deer photography.  Here in Pennsylvania there have been several cases of CWD and three DMAs (Disease Managment Areas) have been established.    So far the Pennsylvania Game Commission has been fairly conservative in dealing with the disease. On the other hand,  The National Park Service is planning to launch a severe response to the disease once  certain triggering thresholds are met.

We first reported on this in the October 26, 2012 post: "Shenandoah Whitetails Under Assault"  At that time the Park had fitted  a large number of deer with ear tags and/or radio collars and were conducting a whitetail deer study geared to charting deer movements.  In conjunction with this a certain number of deer were to be live tested for CWD. Almost overnight they destroyed the world class whitetail photography at Big Meadows which until that time was one of the best areas to observe and photograph whitetail deer in the United States. 

Mature Buck at SNP 2011

 Last week  fellow retired PGC employee Billie Cromwell traveled to SNP to photograph the deer and returned home after two discouraging days.  He called me to ask if I had been there and advised me to cancel any plans I had to visit the park this fall. I had already decided to avoid the park this year due to my disappointing summer trip this year so this meant no change in plans, but it did re-in-force my sense of discouragement about the situation at the Park.  Billie reported that he saw only a handful of deer in the Big Meadows Area.  Places where they were once seen in plenty now were either empty or there was only a deer or two.  He did report seeing a buck or two that was collared last year, but now were wearing none. Soon after talking to Billie, well known Virginia wildlife photographer, Larry W. Brown, contacted me to tell me that the assault on the whitetails of Shenandoah was not over.

Following the links that he sent me, I found that on November 10, the Park released its' CWD Response Plan Amendment/Environmental Assessment plan , which amends the 2013 CWD Detection and Assessment Plan.  To read about CWD and an overview of the  amended plan click Here.http://www.nps.gov/shen/naturescience/cwd.htm

To read the plan in its' entirety or to comment-Click Here: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/document.cfm?parkID=274&projectID=32501&documentID=62248

While the original 2013 plan allows lethal sampling of deer to detect CWD, the proposed amendment allows deer population reduction by lethal means in front country areas of the park to manage the disease.  This would attempt to bring the herd at areas such as Big Meadows in line with  deer numbers in back country areas of the park and in areas outside the park in an attempt to minimize disease transmission.

Big Meadows is listed as the area in the park with the highest deer density/square mile.  Under this amendment 77-81% of the deer would be removed to equal the density of surrounding areas.

If the proposed plan is approved, it will be implemented when two or more positive CWD cases are found within 5 miles of the park boundary or if detected inside the park.  According to the news release this could happen fairly soon (1-3) years or it could be many years away, but it is expected to happen sooner or later.

Also of importance to photographers is that there will be no protection for the mature bucks and all adult deer will be targeted equally.  When it comes to killing deer for CWD testing, the bucks will receive priority in targeting as bucks 2 years of age or older are more likely to have CWD and as they roam over a wider range are supposedly more likely to spread the disease.

Mature Bucks To Be Targeted

Herd reduction will most likely be done at night, from November-March. Specific nighttime area closures may be necessary from November - March in the Central District of the Park so that deer way be shot at areas such as Skyland and Big Meadows.

Public comments may be made either online or by mail.
Comments should be posted online at http://parkplanning.nps.gov/shencwd
Or, send to: Superintendent, Shenandoah National Park, Attn: CWD Response Amendment/EA, 3655 US Highway, 211 East, Luray, VA 22835. 

Public Meetings
Public meetings are scheduled on November 17 (Crozet Public Library, 2020 Library Avenue, Crozet, VA), November 18 (Elkton Community Center, 20593 Blue and Gold Dr, Elkton, VA). All meetings start at 7:00 PM. 

Look for more commentary on this and the situation in the Pennsylvania Elk Range within the near future.  

Originally published at Pennsylvania Wildlife Photographer by Willard Hill.

Shenandoah National Park Whitetails: The Dream--The Reality

Whitetail photography and deer watching in the Big Meadows Area of Shenandoah National park was destroyed in 2012 by the implementation of a whitetail deer study which resulted in the mature bucks at Big Meadows being fitted with radio collars or ear tags and seems to have resulted in a significant reduction in the whitetail population. I had not been to SNP since November of that year after I left in disgust on the first morning of what was scheduled to be a multi-day trip.

After  almost two years of avoiding the park, I decided to check in on the whitetail situation at SNP once again.  As a result, on a late July morning I left home in the wee hours of the morning so I would arrive in the central district of the park at dawn. As I traveled down I-81 my thoughts wandered back through the years and I recalled the countless times I made this trip with visions of herds of deer and large rack bucks grazing in the beautiful summer morning running through my head and how that  more often than not the trip met or exceeded my expectations.  I knew things would be different this year, but it was nice to pretend that the events of the last few years had not taken place.  If one had any doubts as to whether the situation was not as bad as expected, it did not take long to dispel them.  I saw not one deer by the roadside as I traveled  Skyline Drive from Thornton Gap to Big Meadows as dawn was breaking.   I arrived at Big Meadows to be greeted by a beautiful but unusual sunrise.

Big Meadows Sunrise

Only a handful of deer were scattered about in the meadow, none of which were bucks, so I made the loop to below Milam Gap.  An eight-point was grazing along the road before the Milam Gap parking lot, and it was fitted with a collar that had worn most of the hair from the neck.

Collared Buck At Milam Gap

After taking a few photographs, I returned to the meadow where a small herd of deer was now visible in the distance. Three were respectable bucks, but all were wearing collars.  I decided to work these animals and walked into the meadow and took position in a spot it seemed likely they would pass through.  In a few minutes the herd arrived minus one of the bucks, which evidently split off to go elsewhere.  Two bucks were in the lead and for a few moments it seemed like the old days as one could see the tips of the velvet covered antlers bobbing above the bushes and grasses. One almost expected a buck such as this to appear and he did, but there was one big problem.

The Dream

The photograph below shows what he really looks like. 

Harsh Reality

Photographers will argue the ethics of such matters, but it is easy to remove collars and ear tags in Photoshop or similar programs if the collars are relatively small and the neck hair is undamaged, but this is not the case with the Shenandoah deer where the collars are huge in proportion to the animal and the hair is usually damaged.  In this situation there was not enough hair available to clone over the collar so a neck was used from another buck in  photographed in 2011, which was standing in a somewhat similar position.  It would be unethical to enhance the damage to a deer's neck, but  I see nothing wrong with  removing something that should not be there in the first place. However, at this point in life, I have little interest in doing so as it is difficult and one still is left with the unpleasant memory of how the situation actually was.

The second buck was worse yet, as most of the hair was missing from the neck.

Collared Buck With Significant Hair Loss

A mature doe was feeding with the bucks and she too was wearing a collar.

Mature Doe

Each of the deer that was collared also had a small tag in the right ear, which is visible in the last two pictures.

It seems at this point that the battle is lost with little hope for the future.  The National Park Service has been granted a finding of FONSI (Finding Of No Significant Impact), which as I understand it, gives them the go ahead to implement their plans.  http://www.nps.gov/shen/parknews/shenandoah-national-park-completes-cwd-detection-and-assessment-plan.htm .  I found a good definition of "FONSI" on a Department of Energy Page: "Findings of No Significant Impact are public documents issued by a Federal agency briefly presenting the reasons why an action for which the agency has prepared an environmental assessment will not have a significant effect on the human environment and, therefore, will not require preparation of an environmental impact statement. http://energy.gov/nepa/findings-no-significant-impact-fonsi  They are perhaps right that the collars, ear tags, neck injury, and herd reductions means nothing to the average visitor to SNP,  but to the whitetail deer and those that are interested in them, the impact is significant and severe.

Originally published at Pennsylvania Wildlife Photographer by Willard Hill.

More Thoughts About SNP Whitetail Study

Today I would like to thank those who made comments on the blog and on Facebook about the last blog post", "Whitetail Photography at Shenandoah National Park -Destroyed For Now".

Most seemed to agree that the collars are unsightly and are likely to cause the animals a lot of distress, while one reader wants to know if the condition of the animal was reported to SNP officials.

Buck Was Standing Near Visitor Center When Photographed by Billie G. Cromwell

My Response: I spoke with Billie Cromwell who took the photographs and he said he felt no need to report this as the animal was in the lawn right beside the visitor center and was easily visible to maintenance workers and rangers.  As much time as this buck spends between there and the Big Meadows campground makes it extremely unlikely that officials are not  aware of the situation.

Fellow wildlife photographer, Dan Gomola raised the question:"Is there a any way people could band together against animal cruelty of these herds".

My Response:  I have no good answer to this question.  All I know to do is contribute what little I can by trying to draw awareness to the problem.  One should also write letters to officials and attend public meetings.  It would be nice if a large organization with a lot of political clout would take this up but it never seems to happen.  As it is, it seems that the National Park Service has its' way regardless of public input.

Bill, who is an avid hunter and photographer, said, "Those appear to be the most intrusive tacking devices I've ever seen. Monitoring animals for study is fine I suppose but do it in a way that isn't a burden on the animal. With the technology available today those are a little more than over-the-top and ridiculous."

My Response: I agree completely.

Over-The-Top and Ridiculous Collar

Alyssa Johnson who is involved with big game management (as a student in New York State) wrote, " I feel like there must be more to this story than we, and possibly you know. I feel for the animal, of course, because I'm human. But, perhaps there would be more damage done than good to try and remedy this defunct collar. Unfortunately, many people seem to suggest "with today's technology... _________" fill in the blank. Why can't there be a smaller collar, something less obtrusive, microchip, nothing at all, etc. I would like to believe, as someone who is involved with the big game management in my state, that the managers in charge WOULD utilize something less obtrusive, if it was available. I just attended the 2013 TWS National Conference, and was able to handle and examine all kinds of remote-monitoring equipment at the trade show. You lose battery life, distance of signal transmission, type of transmission, and amount of stored data when you make the device smaller. The severity and scope of CWD, for example, is so large and potentially dangerous to our deer herds, that these measures of using hardcore collars, with big packs on them, is so necessary. Without this monitoring, "we" wouldn't be able to manage the deer herds for hunters, photographers, and other wildlife enthusiasts. I'm glad I got to see this pictures, thanks for sharing."

My Response: I will approach the issue by first discussing the Pennsylvania elk herd which I am quite familiar with.  I do not like to see collars on these animals either.  It seems possible that some elk have had problems because of wearing collars, but I have never personally seen an elk's neck severely damaged by a collar.  At one time many of the elk were fitted with brown collars with large yellow side plates attached on which the number of the animal was displayed.  This is shown in the photo of bull 2D below.

Bull 2D-Old Style Collar

This type of collar really became a problem once Pennsylvania elk  became hunted animals again in 2001, as the bright yellow collar made the animal stand out to hunters.  As a result the PGC discontinued their use, but  they did not remove the collars from elk already fitted with them.  From a certain point going forward elk were fitted with brown radio collars. These collars are not numbered like the yellow ones.  The PGC gave up the ability to easily identify individual animals by visual means and must now rely on radio tracking-GPS equipment to do so. I do not like to see these collars on elk any more than I like to see them on deer, but at least they are not causing problems for the animal in most cases.

Brown Collar Currently Used by PGC

In comparing the use of collars on elk and deer one must realize that a deer is a much smaller animal and as such has less space to fit a collar.  This may be part of the problem but it is not all of it. If one looks at the old elk collars closely the numbered panels were not larger than the collar band, but the number panels on the deer collars extend well beyond the collar band.

Numbered Tag Is Larger Than Collar

In addition they appear to be made of a hard material.  It seems likely that this is at least partially responsible for the damage.  Also the brown part of the collar is broken in the photo above, which would contribute to the chafing on this particular animal.  I suspect that these collars were designed so that animals could be visually  identified from a distance without relying entirely on radio transmitters, but if this is the case, does the supposed benefit of this outweigh the damage done to the animal?  Speaking off the record, a  wildlife professional employed by a state conservation agency, said that it could be as simple as the NPS already having that type of collar on hands and using them without giving the matter further thought.

At this point I would like to take a closer look at two portions of Ms. Johnson's comments and respond to them.

Ms Johnson, " I would like to believe, as someone who is involved with the big game management in my state, that the managers in charge WOULD utilize something less ,if it was available."

My response: " I would like to think that too, but unfortunately after working most of my adult life for a state conservation agency,  I wouldn't put too much stock in this. What is proposed and implemented  can be mind boggling at times, in spite of the competence and good intentions of most agency personnel.

Ms Johnson, "The severity and scope of CWD, for example, is so large and potentially dangerous to our deer herds, that these measures of using hardcore collars, with big packs on them, is so necessary. Without this monitoring, "we" wouldn't be able to manage the deer herds for hunters, photographers, and other wildlife enthusiasts."

My response:  I am aware of the statistics on the severity and scope of CWD, but it is not in the least bit clear to me how that measures such as this or drastic herd reduction are going to save the day.  I may live to see the day that I regret this statement, but at this point I think that conservation agency and NPS reaction to the disease has the potential to have a far worse impact on the herd than the disease itself.

In closing, I will mention that I still list a blog or two in my side bar that are no longer updated on a regular basis.  One of these is Larry Thorngren's . "The Wild Photographer".   His last post about radio collars was "Abused Radio-Collared Bison-Yellowstone National Park" on Nov. 6, 2011.  If you are interested in reading more about this type of thing, it may be worth your while to browse through his older posts.

Also check the comments section of this post to read more input from Larry W. Brown and follow the links to see photos of deer in winter that show severe hair loss from the collars.

Originally published at Pennsylvania Wildlife Photographer by Willard Hill.

Developing Story: CWD Found In Wild Deer In PA

With SNP poised on the brink of launching a CWD  reaction program almost certain to be worse than the actual disease, the Pennsylvania Game Commission announced on March 1st that three hunter killed deer taken during the past season tested positive for CWD.  Please read the press release below for details.  I have found no further details as of yet about the CWD News Conference held Monday.

March 1, 2013
Release #019-13: Source: The Pennsylvania Game Commission
CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE FOUND IN BLAIR AND BEDFORD COUNTIES GAME COMMISSION TO HOLD CWD NEWS CONFERENCE MONDAY, MARCH 4
HARRISBURG – The Pennsylvania Game Commission today confirmed three hunter-killed deer taken in the 2012 general firearms deer season have tested positive for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). Two were from Blair County; the other was from Bedford County.

“These are the first positive cases of CWD in free-ranging deer in Pennsylvania,” confirmed Pennsylvania Game Commission Executive Director Carl G. Roe. “The disease was first documented in early October, 2012, by the state Department of Agriculture in a captive deer on an Adams County deer farm.”

The three hunter-killed deer tissue samples were collected by Game Commission personnel during annual deer aging field checks during the general firearms season for deer. The samples were tested and identified as suspect positive by the Department of Agriculture as part of an ongoing annual statewide CWD surveillance program. The tissue samples were confirmed to be positive for CWD by the National Veterinary Services Laboratories in Ames, Iowa, as part of an established verification process.   

“The three CWD-positives were part of 2,945 deer sampled for the disease statewide,” explained Roe. “To date, we have received test results from 1,500 samples, including these three positive samples.  Results from the remaining samples should be available in the next few weeks.”

An additional 2,089 deer were sampled and tested from within the designated Disease Management Area in Adams and York counties; CWD was not detected in any of those deer samples. Since 1998, the Game Commission has gathered and submitted more than 43,000 samples from wild deer and elk for CWD testing. The three CWD-positives announced today are the first to be confirmed in 15 years of testing.

 “Pennsylvania has an active Interagency CWD Task Force and a dynamic CWD surveillance program,” Roe noted, “and we will continue to be vigilant and initiate steps included in the Commonwealth’s CWD Response Plan. We will continue to work diligently with the Department of Agriculture and other members of the task force to better manage the threat of this disease to the state’s captive and wild deer populations.”

The Game Commission is working to identify and engage the hunters who harvested these CWD-positive deer to confirm where the whitetails were killed. A meeting of the Interagency CWD Task Force is being convened this afternoon to discuss the new CWD-positive deer and possible additional actions to determine the prevalence and distribution of the disease within Pennsylvania, as well as to contain its spread. 

The latest information and updates to existing CWD information can be accessed on the Game Commission’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us). Public meetings will be held in the Blair-Bedford County area in coming weeks to share what we know about these CWD-positive deer and CWD in Pennsylvania, and to answer questions the public might have about this disease. How these latest developments may influence hunting regulations and other deer policies are at this time still contingent upon the results of ongoing testing of samples from hunter-killed deer, additional surveillance and fieldwork, and Game Commission and task force deliberations.

 CWD is a degenerative brain disease that affects elk, mule deer and white-tailed deer. It is transmitted by direct animal-to-animal contact through saliva, feces and urine. CWD is fatal in deer and elk, but there is no evidence that CWD can be transmitted to humans, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and The World Health Organization.

Signs of the disease include weight loss, excessive salivation, increased drinking and urination, and abnormal behavior such as stumbling, trembling and depression. Infected deer and elk also may allow unusually close approach by humans or natural predators. There is no known treatment or vaccine.

CWD was first discovered in Colorado captive mule deer in 1967, and has since been detected in 22 states and Canadian provinces, including Pennsylvania’s neighboring states of New York, West Virginia and Maryland.

GAME COMMISSION TO HOLD CWD NEWS CONFERENCE MONDAY, MARCH 4 

Pennsylvania Game Commission Executive Director Carl G. Roe and other Commonwealth officials will hold a press conference to discuss Chronic Wasting Disease 2 p.m., Monday, March 4, in the auditorium of the Game Commission’s Harrisburg Headquarters, 2001 Elmerton Avenue. To keep Pennsylvania hunters and other residents informed on this breaking story, the press conference also will be webcast through the agency’s website (www.pgc.state.pa.us) beginning at 2 p.m. Background on CWD and its limited history in Pennsylvania can be found on the Game Commission’s CWD Info Page.

For more information on CWD from the departments of Agriculture and Health, visit:

• www.agriculture.state.pa.us (click on the “Chronic Wasting Disease Information” button on the homepage), and
• www.health.state.pa.us (click on “Diseases and Conditions”)

Shenandoah Whitetails Under Assault: Public Meetings Announced

SNP Bucks Before CWD Study Began

It appears that the destruction of the world class Whitetail Deer viewing and  photography at SNP caused by the collaring of the mature bucks is just the tip of the ice berg, or at least this will be the case if CWD is found in the park or close enough to the park to trigger whatever reaction plan is finally adopted.  The National Park Service has now released two possible Chronic Wasting Disease response plans or perhaps it is more accurate to say that there is two versions of the same general plan, with one being more reactive in nature, and the other more proactive. The two options are know as the "Phased Approach" and the "Preemptive approach. It more or less boils down to a question of whether the Park Service starts shooting deer before the disease arrives in the park, or after it is discovered there.

Some of the ideas proposed, but already rejected, are also scary indeed to those of us who enjoy watching deer and other wildlife in a natural environment at SNP.  These include fencing the entire park and driving the park deer on to surrounding private lands, fencing deer out of  Big Meadows and other high deer density areas, destroying the vegetation in Big Meadows that attracts deer, introduction of more predators, and general eradication of the deer herd. Non-lethal methods were rejected because they would not reduce the deer herd quickly enough to reduce the likelihood of CWD establishment, or slow the spreading of the disease once it was found in the park.

The details are discussed in depth in:  Chronic Wasting Disease Management Plan and Environmental Impact Statement, Shenandoah National Park Public Scoping-Newsletter. , which may be found by clicking the link, scrolling to the bottom of the page and downloading the pdf document.

This is quite simply a no win situation for the deer, and those that are interested in them. The only choice between the proposals is which is the lesser of two evils. Deer watching and photography has already been severely impacted as a side effect of the CWD study. That is an accomplished fact-- no discussion or complaining will change it--although it is good to let officials know ones' thoughts on the situation.  In time the collars will fall off if the collaring program is not continued and eventually the situation will return to normal, but that will not likely be the case and it most certainly will not be the case if the preemptive plan is selected, as the shooting of deer would then start at any time officials decided.

The next step in the process is a series of Public Scoping/Draft Alternatives Meetings. These meetings are to provide opportunities for the public to express their concerns about the situation and provide feedback on the preliminary alternatives that have been developed.. According to the newsletter, "each meeting will be in an open house format with a presentation."  "NPS staff will be on hand to visit with you, answer questions, and solicit your input. Attendees may also submit comments in writing on forms available at the meeting, on-line, or by mail as described in this newsletter."

Below is a list of the Public Meetings.

March 12 – Charlottesville, VA, 7-9 pm
The Educational Building at Ivy Creek Natural Area
1780 Earlysville Road

March 13 – Harrisonburg, VA, 7-9 pm
James Madison University
Integrated Science and Technology Building
nTelos Room #259

March 14 – Washington, VA, 7-9 pm
Washington Fire Hall
10 Firehouse Lane

ADDRESSES:

The preferred method of comment is

to submit comments electronically

through the NPS PEPC website

http://parkplanning.nps.gov/shen

You may also mail

comments to Superintendent, Shenandoah Na

tional Park, 3655 U.S. Highway 211 East,

Luray, VA, 22835.

For more reading on the subject, visit the following links:
http://www.guidetosnp.com/web/portals/0/2013-CWD.pdf
http://www.snptrust.org/2013/02/cwd-in-white-tailed-deer-nps-requests-your-input/

Also see the post on Flickr "Public Input Requested" by Larry W. Brown, which also has the meeting and contact information, along with featuring a superb photograph of one of the most impressive SNP bucks that unfortunately has been missing since the CWD study began late last summer.

A special thanks to Larry W. Brown and Jim Fields for directing our attention to this information and for their efforts on behalf of the Whitetails of SNP.

Originally published at Pennsylvania Wildlife Photographer by Willard Hill.

2012 In Retrospect-Part III: Shenanodah Whitetails Under Assault

Perhaps the biggest story of 2012,  for those who love to photograph whitetail deer in the Mid-Atlantic area, was the destruction of quality deer photography at Shenandoah National Park in Virginia, when most of the mature bucks and many of the does at the prime visitor areas such as Big Meadows were fitted with radio collars.  Some times one can see something bad coming a long way off and have time to mount an offensive against it, or in the worst case scenario accept that it is about to happen and change plans accordingly,  but this happened so quickly that there was no chance for objection before it was an accomplished fact.

Whitetail Buck Before Collaring Craze Began

Young 8 Point Performs Lip-Curl

Little did I realize when my brother Coy and I encountered these bucks in velvet during an August trip to SNP, that things were about to change drastically in the next few weeks.  I will admit that I should have seen this coming as whitetail deer have become a controversial species during the past several years, which has resulted in drastic moves to reduce deer populations in many areas.

Here in Pennsylvania we fist heard of the controversy about too many deer on National Park land when a herd reduction program was proposed and eventually implemented at Gettysburg Military Park. The same situation later happened at Valley Forge National Historical Park near Philadelphia.  Both programs are ongoing.  I have not photographed deer at Gettysburg or Valley Forge, but from what I have heard and read it is no longer worthwhile to pursue this activity there.

We first learned about the problem at SNP from Jim Borden, a wildlife photographer from Pennsylvania, who e-mailed us a link to a post on Flickr by Virginia wildlife photographer, Larry W. Brown.  Mr. Brown went on to publish more posts on the subject.  You may find these posts here:

Public Input Is Important
This Assessment Cannot Be Just About CWD
National Park Toys

The upshot of the situation was that we found Larry Brown's description of the impact on the Big Meadows herd to be extremely accurate when we traveled there to photograph the rut in early November.

Collared Buck At SNP

As one read more about the controversy, it seemed more and more likely that the study was not just about dealing with CWD, but that it was actually much broader in scope.  This concern seems to be validated by a Natural Resource Fact Sheet, "White-tailed Deer Issues and Management" published by the National Park Service. The document states it was last updated on October 24, 2008. 

In the post of October 25, 2012, "Shenandoah Whitetails Under Assault" on this blog, I wrote, "They state on the facebook page (SNP's current Facebook page at the time),  "this research is being done to protect the deer herd from a horrible and fatal disease--Chronic Wasting Disease", but they fail to point out that there are basically only two forms of response to the presence of CWD--either do nothing or kill as many deer as possible in a designated containment area in hopes of eliminating all infected animals."

The Natural Resource Fact Sheet, serves to validate the claim that the deer study is really not about CWD.

It  addresses CWD to a certain extent at the end of the fact sheet as quoted below:

"• In 2006, the Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries implemented Statewide chronic wasting disease (CWD) deer movement restrictions. This effectively ended all capture / relocation of beggar deer in the Park developed areas.
• CWD is discovered in Slainsville, WV in free- ranging deer. This location is less than 35 miles from Front Royal and the Northern end of the park.
• In December 2007 a CDW positive deer is discovered in Yellow Spring , WV. This location is less than 25 miles from Front Royal and the Northern end of the park.
• Since 2007 the park has been in the process of developing an Environmental Assessment Plan for CWD detection and initial response."

This serves to partially validate their claim that the study is about CWD, but a close perusal of the rest of the Fact Sheet  reveals that the main concern in 2008 was really about herd reduction. Again I quote from the Fact Sheet: (Note: BMA is Big Meadows Area, and LMA is Loft Mountain Area.)

"Park staff is currently attempting to secure funding for a deer population dynamics study at the BMA and LMA. This study will help us determine the cultural carrying capacity for the BMA and LMA deer herds which in turn will help us maintain more natural deer populations, prevent further landscape degradation, and prevent historical scene degradation. Ultimately, more natural deer populations in park developed areas will help preserve the natural landscape features (rare wildflowers, etc.) that visitors have come to expect in places like the unique highelevation Big Meadow. The findings of this study will generate tangible deer management recommendations. These recommendations along with the results from future studies will be used to update the park’s Deer Management Plan and to formulate an Environmental Impact Statement. This will allow park managers to better manage the park’s deer populations in developed areas."

So we find that CWD is not the foremost concern at all in 2008, but it seems that with CWD being found in more and more areas that the NPS latched on this as a means of convincing the public of the need for a study in SNP. (Note: As best as I can tell no CWD cases have been found closer to SNP than had been discovered in 2008.)

Stay tuned as we pursue this subject from time to time as more information becomes available,  Hopefully this will have only a short term impact on whitetail photography at SNP, but I would not hold my breath waiting for the good old days to return.

A special thanks to Jim Borden, Larry W. Brown, Jim Fields,Todd Mann, Tom  and others who shared their insights on the situation, either through e-mails or in comments on previous posts in the series.

Originally published at Pennsylvania Wildlife Photographer by Willard Hill.

Shenandoah Whitetails Under Assault Part 2

While I appreciate most wildlife and spend countless hours afield in pursuit of it with a camera, I am more fascinated by whitetail deer and elk than any of the other species.  Even though I am primarily noted for my interest in Pennsylvania Elk, if it came right down to it I would have to choose deer over elk, if I had to pick one favorite species.  Whitetails have always been a heavily hunted species in Pennsylvania and there are no areas of public land that I know of where one can easily observe whitetails going about their daily life without fleeing at the sight of humans.  It is my understanding that one could see this at one time at Gettysburg National Military Park, or at Valley Forge, but both have utilized sharpshooters to reduce the herd.  I cannot speak from personal experience, but I am told that neither area is what it once was for seeing deer.

Shenandoah National Park has been a special place to so many of us because of its' easily visible deer herd. Since I worked for the Pennsylvania Game Commission for many years, I have always been finely attuned to deer management issues, which translated into concern that in time the herd reduction people would focus their attention on the deer of SNP and attempt to manage its' deer herd.. As I mentioned in the previous post, a study is now underway which is being portrayed as part of a plan to protect the deer from CWD, but many are concerned that it is more than this.

As a result of the study, several of the deer in the big meadows area have been fitted with radio collars, and/ or ear tags. Billie Cromwell was at the park last week and photographed three bucks fitted with the radio collars.  He stopped by yesterday and dropped off 4x6 prints of them, so the photos for today are scans of the photos.  They do not do justice to the originals, but they effectively show the problem and will give those who follow the SNP deer herd a look at three of the bucks that had collars as of early last week and may still be found in the Big Meadows area. I wish to thank Billie for sharing these photographs with us and granting permission to use them on the blog.

Mature Buck With Collar Big Meadows Campground: Photo by Billie G. Cromwell

Buck Near Tanners Ridge Overlook: Photo by Billie G. Cromwell

Ten Point Buck With Collar SNP: Photo by Billie G. Cromwell

I was pleased to receive a comment on the previous post from well known wildlife photographer, Jim Fields, who lives in the area and has spent countless hours afield in the park observing and photographing the deer.  Here is what Jim has to say about the situation.

"The secretive way this assessment was handled and the fact they have concentrated their efforts in an area with a high habituated deer concentration instead of distributing the test throughout the entire park certainly leads us to believe there is more to this than a CWD assessment. There are SNP documents from past years that elude to other purposes for 38 deer being captured in Big Meadows out of the 70 being tested in total.

The SNP site does not have up to date information on current status of Big meadows. To date I have found (7) collared bucks in the Greater Big Meadows area. Park officials have informed me that “bucks collared in the Big Meadows area will likely be nine (plus one ear-tagged buck)”. Thus (18) collared deer and (20) deer with ear tags just in the greater Big Meadows area. The parks estimate is 20-25 bucks reside in this area so this give you an idea of the percentage of bucks remaining. I can tell you that in the past 5 weeks I have seen very few bucks without collars in Big Meadows. I am sure there will be less habituated bucks showing up during the November rut, but it will not be like years past. This has been a tuff hit for wildlife photography in the park." --Jim Fields 10/29/2012.

Also be sure to read the full comment by professional wildlife photographer, Tom  who expresses concerns that the National Park Service may be doing this to discourage photographers.  I will post a bit of it below, but be sure and visit the comments on the previous post to read it in its entirety.

"I suspect that the purpose may be that they want to discourage photographers from constantly hanging around the deer with their cameras. They may just think that if they put huge, obtrusive collars on the biggest bucks, then photographers will not pursue the deer so persistently. If that is the reason, or part of the reason, they the NPS should be ashamed of themselves."

Tom goes on to say, " I will get every image I possibly can, fully documenting the collared bucks and the impacts of the "study".

Whatever the reason for the study, it is sad to see so many of the Big Meadows herd fitted with the collars and tags.  The next few weeks will tell what the short term impact on deer watching and photography will be.  I for one hope that this is not the beginning of a program to drastically reduce the SNP deer herd as was done at Gettysburg and Valley Forge.  This would effectively destroy SNP as a haven for wildlife enthusiasts and photographers.

Originally published by Willard Hill at Pennsylvania Wildlife Photographer.