DNR biologists consider CWD a real threat to Georgia's deer herd

jbird1

Senior Member
Does anyone know, as far as Georgia's testing program goes, at what prevalence level are we expecting our first positive? In other words, how long can we expect CWD to have ACTUALLY been in GA by the time we get our first positive test result?
 
Does anyone know, as far as Georgia's testing program goes, at what prevalence level are we expecting our first positive? In other words, how long can we expect CWD to have ACTUALLY been in GA by the time we get our first positive test result?
No way to know until you find it. We could get lucky like New York and find the first couple of deer that were infected and stamp it out, or unlucky like Arkansas and Tennessee and realize it's been there for a decade undetected.
 

jbird1

Senior Member
No way to know until you find it. We could get lucky like New York and find the first couple of deer that were infected and stamp it out, or unlucky like Arkansas and Tennessee and realize it's been there for a decade undetected.
That's what concerns me. I'm hoping Ga's testing is widespread and we get lucky.
 
That's what concerns me. I'm hoping Ga's testing is widespread and we get lucky.
We have a statewide risk-based surveillance strategy that we update as new information is discovered. Part of that is testing every sick deer we can get our hands on.
 

jbird1

Senior Member
We have a statewide risk-based surveillance strategy that we update as new information is discovered. Part of that is testing every sick deer we can get our hands on.
I'm sure this has been discussed, however, I would be willing to support an initiative to expand testing of "healthy" deer at processors throughout the state to aid in early detection in the herd...possibly through a modest increase in license fees. It's something I would think most hunters could get behind. A case for public safety (cross contamination) would aid in public awareness and ultimately work towards the goal of early detection and herd protection.

Your current efforts in the matter are greatly appreciated.
 
I'm sure this has been discussed, however, I would be willing to support an initiative to expand testing of "healthy" deer at processors throughout the state to aid in early detection in the herd...possibly through a modest increase in license fees. It's something I would think most hunters could get behind. A case for public safety (cross contamination) would aid in public awareness and ultimately work towards the goal of early detection and herd protection.

Your current efforts in the matter are greatly appreciated.
I want a cwd test I can buy or go pay for.
Sure would come in handy and worth it’s weight in gold.
We are currently working on making testing available to everyone for a fee. You would just call your region office and arrange to bring your deer head by an office or other more convenient location. The focus here would be giving folks peace of mind should they have concerns.

Testing a whole bunch of random deer for surveillance purposes is really a waste of money. It's better to focus resources on sick deer or areas that have the highest risk. We test a lot of roadkills, some states that have CWD found that roadkills are 17 times more likely to be positive than a random deer.
 

jbird1

Senior Member
It may be my naivete, but I would rather spend the $$ before it gets here (if it's not already here.) Early detection seems paramount. We need to keep our fingers crossed that we pick it up early on a roadkill. My guess is the prevalence will be higher at the first positive with the current model. I would be interested to know what the testing fee is and what is economically feasible...current testing vs. future costs of containment/revenue loss from hunting and other impacts. The task seems daunting and I don't envy your position.
 
It may be my naivete, but I would rather spend the $$ before it gets here (if it's not already here.) Early detection seems paramount. We need to keep our fingers crossed that we pick it up early on a roadkill. My guess is the prevalence will be higher at the first positive with the current model. I would be interested to know what the testing fee is and what is economically feasible...current testing vs. future costs of containment/revenue loss from hunting and other impacts. The task seems daunting and I don't envy your position.
What we're doing now with a risk-based sampling protocol is our best chance at early detection. Early on, most states were testing a bunch of random deer evenly distributed across the state rather than a targeted approach like we all use now. That's why it went undetected for so long in those states. TN switched to this new surveillance strategy last year and that's how they found it.
 

Lilly001

Senior Member
What are the risk factors?
And does that tie in with the increased positives in road kill?
 

jbird1

Senior Member
What we're doing now with a risk-based sampling protocol is our best chance at early detection. Early on, most states were testing a bunch of random deer evenly distributed across the state rather than a targeted approach like we all use now. That's why it went undetected for so long in those states. TN switched to this new surveillance strategy last year and that's how they found it.
Got it...it sounds counterintuitive but you can't argue with results.
 
What are the risk factors?
And does that tie in with the increased positives in road kill?
Areas with the highest likelihood of illegal importation of live deer. It doesn't really tie into rodakills, it's just that the disease probably impairs their judgement making them more susceptible to getting hit by a car.
 

jivarie

Senior Member
Provide Fee based testing to the public and test all the sick deer. That would cover your random and targeted sampling. I, for one, would test all my deer for a fee...100%.
 

Browning Slayer

Official GON Forum Meme Poster
Areas with the highest likelihood of illegal importation of live deer. It doesn't really tie into rodakills, it's just that the disease probably impairs their judgement making them more susceptible to getting hit by a car.

Do you guys have an estimate of how many "live deer" are brought into GA on an annual basis?
 
Do you guys have an estimate of how many "live deer" are brought into GA on an annual basis?
Our borders were closed to the import of live deer in 2005. Since that time we've only documented one illegal import of 33 whitetails, all of which were tested along with the local deer they came into contact with. We have a standing policy to test any deer held unlawfully where we can't document the origin. We also test any deer that show up with ear tags or collars.
 
Our borders were closed to the import of live deer in 2005. Since that time we've only documented one illegal import of 33 whitetails, all of which were tested along with the local deer they came into contact with. We have a standing policy to test any deer held unlawfully where we can't document the origin. We also test any deer that show up with ear tags or collars.
Called about this one I found yesterday and the GW had no interest in coming out. IMG_20190513_141440086.jpg
 
Top