web1_BLOTTER.jpg

Hazleton man charged with domestic dispute

NWS.jpg.png

Freeze warning in effect until 9 a.m., temperatures to dip into the 20’s

Six years ago Dr. Walter Cottrell presented an important recommendation to the Pennsylvania Game Commission board, and he urged they follow his advice.Cottrell practically begged.Pleaded.But he couldn&#8217;t convince.Cottrell, who was the PGC&#8217;s wildlife veterinarian at the time, gave a presentation to the commissioners during the October 2009 board meeting about chronic wasting disease. The disease had yet to be detected in Pennsylvania, but Cottrell urged the commissioners to take a step to reduce the risk.He recommended the commissioners vote to ban the use of deer urine. Cottrell reasoned that since infected deer shed CWD prions in their urine, and there is no way to certify it&#8217;s safe, it would be best if the commissioners take a proactive approach and prohibit the use of deer lure.They didn&#8217;t, and now the disease is present in the state.In all fairness, the board&#8217;s lack of action regarding a ban on the use of deer urine back in 2009 didn&#8217;t lead to the current CWD outbreak in Pennsylvania, where the disease has surfaced in captive and wild deer in three areas across the state.Still, I can&#8217;t help but feel that the board, in 2009, missed an opportunity to be truly proactive on the CWD front when they didn&#8217;t vote to ban the use of deer urine.Especially considering another state has now listened to Cottrell.In May, the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Board voted to ban the use of deer urine-based lures, effective in 2016.Like Pennsylvania, Vermont shares a border with another state - New York, where CWD has been found. Vermont doesn&#8217;t want the disease to cross the border, and banning the use of deer urine is one safeguard they felt needed to be taken.While the PGC board has yet to act on a deer urine ban in 2009, apparently the topic is generating some renewed interest. It was discussed at the board&#8217;s working group meeting in August and again at the September meeting.The roadblock to instituting a ban on the use of deer urine by hunters is the impact such a move could have on the lure industry. The PGC will be meeting with industry representatives, who are looking at ways to certify the deer used to produce urine-based lures are free of CWD.Maybe a compromise can be reached but right now, as far as I know, there isn&#8217;t a way to certify that a particular urine-based lure is free of CWD prions. And while we wait for such a test to materialize there is a chance that hunters may be in inadvertently pouring contaminated lure on the ground.That&#8217;s unsettling.I don&#8217;t know how a lure company can claim its product is free of prions when there is no non-lethal way to test a deer for CWD.Just because a captive herd has not had any diseased animals for several years doesn&#8217;t mean CWD isn&#8217;t present, or won&#8217;t show up. It can take a year or more for symptoms to appear, and considering that captive deer operations frequently buy, sell and trade animals with other facilities, from other states, how can anyone say with certainty that a facility is CWD-free?Consider this: According to a news release issued by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife Department regarding the ban, the first CWD case in Pennsylvania was from a captive deer operation that was considered &#8220;CWD-free&#8221; and was also selling urine-based lure.Was that lure contaminated with CWD prions? Where was it used? Is it still out there?We&#8217;ll never know, and until there&#8217;s a indisputable means to test urine-based lure before it is sold, a ban is the only answer.I know that prohibiting the use of deer lure in Pennsylvania will be a big financial hit to the industry. That&#8217;s unfortunate, and for the lure industry&#8217;s sake I hope they do find a way to test and certify their product.But how much of a financial hit would a widespread outbreak of CWD be to Pennsylvania&#8217;s deer hunting industry? Our deer hunting tradition is far too great to risk losing to a little bottle of urine.Some contend that there isn&#8217;t any evidence the use of deer lure can spread CWD, but I don&#8217;t think it&#8217;s very proactive to wait until proof is discovered and then react.We do know that infected deer shed CWD prions in their urine. The disease has been found in captive deer farms in Pennsylvania and many other states. And the urine used to make lure comes from deer farms.If urine-based lure wasn&#8217;t a risk factor for spreading CWD, then why does the PGC ban its use in the three Disease Management Areas in the state?Vermont did the right thing by prohibiting the use of urine-based deer lure. It&#8217;s a proactive, preventative step that has been supported by Cottrell and several other scientists with extensive CWD research under their belts.Vermont listened to what Cottrell tried to tell Pennsylvania years ago.The PGC board turned a deaf ear to his recommendation in 2009, but it&#8217;s still not to late to listen and act.I&#8217;m convinced.<div class="metaInfo"><bylineMeta>By Tom Veneskytvenesky@www.timesleader.com</bylineMeta></div><div class="metaInfo"><shirttailMeta>Reach Tom Venesky at 570-991-6395 or on Twitter @TLTomVenesky</shirttailMeta></div>

Outdoors with Tom Venesky: A smelly situation