TN Wildlife Resource Agency - Elk Importation

In 2000, Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency (TWRA) and the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation (RMEF) began an elk restoration project for Tennessee similar to what a few other eastern states had done in order to bring elk back to areas that they had once inhabited. Over the next three years, elk were imported in from Land Between the Lakes (LBL) in Kentucky and Elk Island in Alberta, Canada. These elk were imported into Tennessee without meeting the Tennessee Department of Agricultures rules and regulations for importation regarding tuberculosis (TB). State regulations require elk to be obtained from a herd that has had a whole herd TB test or the animals to be imported must have two negative TB tests performed at least 90 days apart before entry into the state. These elk were imported without a whole herd TB test and only one individual TB test.

The elk that were imported from Elk Island and LBL did not meet Tennessee Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) monitoring requirements either, but still they were allowed to be imported. In researching this situation, I learned that the Kentucky State Veterinarian had issued a signed letter stating that he had viewed the herd at LBL and was confident the herd did not have CWD. This is absolutely amazing as no live animal test has been approved and yet this veterinarian can diagnose CWD infected animals by sight alone.

CWD has been diagnosed in at least three wild mule deer about 100 miles from Elk Island, www.srd.gov.ab.ca/fw/diseases/cwd/index.html, and since there is nose to nose contact at the fence line plus animals commonly come and go over the fence, www.booneandcrockettclub.com/news/trophyWatch_detail.asp?area=news&ID=04C26F2B-749C-4DB6-88D2-143E8B3F170C, the Elk Island herd in Alberta, Canada, is unsafe for relocation and restoration. The elk at LBL originated from the Elk Island herd, plus the LBL herd has not been properly monitored for CWD since their relocation to Kentucky. These factors also make the LBL herd unsafe.

When the general public learned of what had transpired and criticized TWRA, officials responded by saying that the elk that they had imported met more rigid requirements than the elk that had been imported by farmers. While there is a little truth to this, it is very misleading because the more rigid requirements that TWRA were referring to was the TWRA imported elk were checked for fleas, ticks and chiggers. Aint that a hoot!

As time went on, CWD became more of a concern for Tennessee and other states so most if not all of the elk restorations projects around the country were stopped due to the fear of possibly spreading CWD to areas that were assumed to be CWD free. This fear of CWD ceased in late 2006 when TWRA and the RMEF learned of the proposed new USDA CWD program which would preempt state rules and regulations and put a stop to these high risk elk restoration projects that do not meet CWD monitoring requirements. If adopted as written, the new USDA CWD rules and regulations would prevent states from simply issuing a waiver to their state wildlife agencies allowing them to import these high-risk elk that do not meet import requirements.

In the fall of 2006, TWRAs fear shifted from the possible spread of CWD to the possible spread of Federal Government rules preventing them from obtaining these cheap elk from places like Elk Island and Land Between the Lakes that cant meet the import regulations in regard to disease issues such as TB and CWD.

TWRA is currently making an aggressive attempt to obtain these cheap unsafe elk before the USDA can finalize their new CWD program that will preempt state rules and regulations. TWRA and a few others that can only see dollar signs have pressured the Tennessee Commissioner of Agriculture into signing a waiver which will allow TWRA and the RMEF to import these high risk elk that do not meet Tennessees rules and regulations. It seems that greed outweighs common sense because since TWRA and the RMEF developed a scheme that will generate somewhere between $200,000 and $400,000 in the sale of four elk bulls during the 2008 Tennessee hunting season, TWRA is willing to bend or break any rule and jeopardize our wild deer herd plus our livestock with the possibility of TB and CWD just to line their coffers with surplus cash.

This situation will not only affect Tennessee, but also could affect any or all of the surrounding states if TB, CWD or other diseases are imported with these elk.

It is time that state wildlife agencies are held accountable for their actions and it is also time for them to have to meet the same rules and regulations that farmers have had to meet for years. If there are any variances in the rules and regulations for these state wildlife agencies, they should be held to more rigid standards and not less rigid standards than the farmers who import the same species. After all, state wildlife agencies will release their imported animals into the wild to roam wherever they please over a large unrestricted area where they will come in contact with other wildlife and livestock. So, the possibility of the spread of disease is much greater from these animals than the ones imported by farmers who keep their animals confined behind a high fence with little or no contact to other animals except those owned by that farmer.

Dr. Luterbach,

As of about noon yesterday, the USDA officials had not approved the request to allow the movement of elk from Elk Island into the U.S. As we both know, these elk do not meet the USDA protocol for importation into the U.S. for several reasons in regard to disease issues and other things. Also they do not meet individual state importations regulations, even though a waiver has been signed and issued from one of the receiving states, Tennessee.

This attempt to import elk, that clearly does not meet the safe import regulations that have been put into place by the authorities to ensure the safe interstate movement of healthy animals and to reduce the possibility of spreading diseases such as TB and CWD, has gotten the attention of several thousand concerned individuals plus the attention of the U.S. Cervid Industry because of the negative publicity developed since this risky importation attempt has been made public.

I respectfully ask that you reconsider your position on exporting these elk that are under your charge, due to their not meeting all of the required regulations. We are seeking an injunction to prevent these elk from being imported and we would hope that you would stop this exportation attempt from Canada and not put these elk through the stress of being handled, loaded and hauled away from your facility only to have the animals rejected before they reach their destination due to the injunction and then have to be put down or hauled back to your high fenced enclosure. For the safety and welfare of these elk, we would hope that you would withdraw from this importation attempt.

Sincerely,

David L. Autry

The plan to reintroduce additional Rocky Mountain Elk into Tennessee could be on the endangered list, at least for this year.

"Were hearing noises that the U.S. Dept. of Agriculture may not approve the importation permit," according to Ron Fox, Asst. Director of the Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agency, "We dont have a denial, but we dont have an approval either."

TWRA had expected to import an additional 140 or 150 elk from Elk Island Park in Canada. "The folks at Elk Island are ready to send them our way," said Fox. "The animals have all been worked up. Theyve been given shots and check-ups. Were still making plans and if we get approval well load up and get them quickly."

However there has been concerted opposition to the additional reintroduction, mostly from businesses that raise and sell exotic wild animals, including elk. Their primary concern is that introduced animals might bring in Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD).

There are about 250 elk from past reintroductions already in and around the Royal Blue Wildlife Management Area northwest of Knoxville. TWRA has made tentative plans to hold the first quota hunt in that area in 2008. The initial idea is to draw for a total of five permits for bull elk.

Fox says if they arent allowed to import additional elk this year it would be a setback, however the hunt could still go on. He says calculations by wildlife biologists show that harvesting five bulls would not hurt the herd.

"Wed just feel a lot better if we could give that population a shot in the arm," said Fox. "Of course we expect to get an additional 40 elk from the Land Between the Lakes herd regardless of what happens with the Elk Island animals."

He says a definite answer on the importation permit from the USDA might come soon.

"I think well have a clear answer by Monday, Maybe tomorrow (Friday)."

The Tennessee Wildlife Federation has been working hard to help TWRA bring in additional elk. Executive Director Mike Butler said "You know people told us in the late 1990s that elk would never make it back to the wild in Tennessee. In fact, the first efforts to bring elk to Land Between the Lakes were a grand failure. That failure reinforced a lesson I learned playing football -- never quit. Perseverance and patience were what made the elk project happen in the first place and it will be what will allow this last leg to be successful, no matter how long it may take there will be more elk released into the wild of Tennessee."

Dear Mr. Autry,

This is in response to your emails. The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) has carefully evaluated Tennessees request to import a herd of elk from Canadas Elk Island. The situation was complex and required careful scrutiny by our staff, as well as discussion with animal health officials from the Canadian Food Inspection Agency (CFIA).

Our regulations state that certain criteria must be met before animals can be imported, and by mutual agreement with the CFIA, the U.S. Department of Agriculture has requirements for the importation of cervids from Canada. In this case, CFIA could not certify that the herd of origin is tuberculosis negative, according to the provisions of the CFIA captive ungulate program. In addition, the elk did not meet requirements for continuous records of animal identification from time of birth until export. Therefore, at this time, APHIS cannot approve the importation of these animals.

APHIS has the responsibility to protect the heath of our nations agriculture and natural resources. We appreciate your understanding as we examined this situation.

Sincerely,

John R. Clifford

To all USDA personnel involved with the Elk Island importation request from TWRA, thank you for denying TWRAs request for the importation of elk that clearly do not meet the USDA protocol.

The U.S. cervid industry approves of your decision and appreciates the fact that a state wildlife agency was held to the same regulations that the U.S. cervid industry has been held to.

The U.S. cervid industry is aware of TWRAs appeal of your denial on their importation request and we hope that the USDA does not waver on your previous decision.

TWRAs appeal refers to the amount of time and money that TWRA has invested in this project in hopes that it will influence your decision but while TWRAs investment may be significant, it does not justify putting Tennessees livestock and wildlife at risk for disease. It would be like comparing a grain of sand to the whole state of Tennessee. TWRAs investment on these unsafe elk is insignificant when compared to the health risk of Tennessees livestock and wildlife by allowing animals to be imported that do not meet regulations.

TWRAs appeal tries to imply that while these elk at Elk Island do not meet the USDA protocol that this state wildlife agency, TWRA, should be given special treatment. The U.S. cervid industry would be against any special treatment for this state wildlife agency and we feel there is no reason for unfair double standards. Our position on this issue is: Either these Elk Island elk come into compliance and meet ALL of the USDA protocol or THE USDA SHOULD NOT ALLOW THESE UNSAFE ELK TO BE IMPORTED INTO THE U.S.

While the USDA only addressed two areas that the Elk Island herd did not meet the USDA protocol, there are actually a few other areas where the U.S. cervid industry feels this herd does not qualify for importation into the U.S.

Please refer to my previous emails, listed below, for the details on these three areas of disqualification!

The U.S. cervid industry supports the ideal of having one set of regulations that are for all to follow and we hope that the USDA will hold firm on your previous decision and not allow unsafe risky animals to be imported into the U.S. that do not meet ALL areas of the USDA protocol.

Sincerely,

David L. Autry

There will be no new elk on Royal Blue or Sundquist wildlife management areas this year. USDA has denied Tennessee Wildlife Resources Agencys appeal of an earlier decision barring elk from Elk Island National Park in Canada from coming to Tennessee.

A thumbs down to the appeal was expected by TWRA. Elk Island, located in Alberta, had 140 elk ready for transport to Tennessee, but will release them back into the wild.

"We will get more elk, just not this year," said Greg Wathen, chief of wildlife for TWRA. "We still believe Elk Island is the safest place for us to get elk."

TWRA has also nixed plans to get about 30 elk from Land Between the Lakes in Kentucky. The technicality USDA cited that would stop elk coming in from Elk Island would likely be used to stop those from LBL as well.

Since 1937 Elk Island has provided over 2,700 elk for restoration projects around the world. Wathen said the elk that were supposed to come to Tennessee had all tested negative for brucellosis and bovine tuberculosis and 50 of them had been outfitted with radio tracking collars.

"We feel like Elk Island has the safest wild herd in North America," Wathen said. "The USDA rules are for captive elk and they really dont fit wild animals very well."

Wathen said TWRA will be out the approximately $100,000 already spent on the relocation project.

To the Coalition,

Thank you&to all that worked on this project, the industry leaders as well as the individuals that did their part.

There was work going on behind the scenes by individual cervid farmers that has not been mentioned here. Individuals who were contributing in their own way by suggestions, bits of information, knowledge of who to contact.

With us all working together, industry leaders and individual cervid farmers, we can and did make a difference and I am proud to be involved in this great industry.

We have won a major battle and we must now move on to some of the other problems that our industry is facing.

David L. Autry