One-hundred thirty-seven commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated displeasure with the rules, describing them, variously, as onerous, overkill, out of control, excessive regulation, government overreach, witch hunt, or some other similar descriptive language meant to illustrate the department's actions as being egregious and unnecessary. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that CWD continues to be detected in deer breeding facilities and release sites associated with breeding facilities across the state; additional testing requirements for deer being transferred between deer breeders are necessary, as well as measures to enhance the department's ability to quickly test deer at release sites that have been epidemiologically linked to a positive deer breeding facility or facilities. The department believes the rules as adopted are sensible, appropriate, and reasonable. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Fifty-six commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the rules are reflective or representative of a pre-existing condition of department antipathy towards deer breeders, describing the rules as discriminatory, bullying, crippling, "war on breeders," trying to put breeders out of business, punishing breeders, and other unflattering adjectives and phrases with negative connotations. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules as adopted are not and are not intended to be punitive or as a demonstration of wanton disregard for the regulated community; rather, they represent the earnest desire of the department to discharge its statutory duty to protect and conserve the wildlife resources of the state from the apparently increasing threat of CWD in captive breeding facilities and to do so in a manner that is conscientious and respectful of the interests of the regulated community. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Thirty-nine commenters opposed adoption and stated that the rules will harm, kill, destroy, or otherwise negatively impact deer hunting or the "white tail industry," and 41 commenters stated in various ways that the rules hurt small businesses, the hunting industry, businesses associated with the hunting industry, the state economy, and local economies, and other general assertions of financial hardship or harm. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules as adopted do not directly regulate any person other than those who hold a deer breeder permit and those who purchase deer from deer breeders for purposes of release and whose release sites are subsequently linked epidemiologically to a deer breeding facility where CWD has been detected ("positive facility"), imposing testing requirements as a condition for the transfer of breeder deer between deer breeders and at release sites that become epidemiologically linked to positive deer breeding facilities ("trace-out release site"). The department notes that captive-bred deer represent an extremely small percentage (less than five percent) of the total number of deer harvested annually in Texas and in that context, whatever ancillary, indirect economic impact of the rules as adopted is exceedingly minor, if it exists at all. The department also notes that if CWD is allowed to become widespread, the economic impacts and the impacts to hunting and to the regulated community itself will be significant. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Thirty-eight commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and expressed some sort of doubt with respect to the threat or even existence of CWD, claiming the disease has been around forever, isn't fatal, has no effect on deer populations, only affects small portions of the deer population, hasn't caused "die-offs," isn't prevalent, has never killed a deer, is a scam, or some other, similar expression of disbelief, and that the department's response to CWD is therefore a waste of time and money because it is not warranted. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that although much is unknown about CWD there is no scientific debate as to whether it is real, that it is without question invariably fatal, and that the disease can have population level effects. Further, the absence of large-scale die-offs isn't an appropriate metric because CWD can take years to reach a high prevalence in free-ranging deer populations, at which point it becomes impossible to eradicate. The department's management efforts are intended to prevent this outcome from occurring. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Thirty commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated in some form or fashion that the department and commission are engaging in a conspiracy with or acting in the interests of wealthy landowners to eliminate deer breeders because they do not want market competition for hunting opportunity. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that not only is there no merit whatsoever to the accusation, it is difficult to conceive that, given the extremely small percentage of breeder deer in the deer population or the total harvest, there would be sufficient economic incentive for anyone, wealthy or not, to eliminate deer breeding. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Twenty-seven commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated in various ways that the rules are unsupported by science generally or peer-reviewed science in particular, or that the science upon which the department bases the rules is flawed. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that its CWD management policy and regulatory stance are driven by the best available science. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Twenty-three commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated the rules constituted a violation of private property rights and were unfair to property owners. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the rules do not affect private property rights in any way. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eighteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that they are unnecessary because the current rules are working. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that through slow but steady improvements in the department's rules over the last five years, the department's ability to expeditiously and reliably detect the disease has increased; however, the continued detection and transfer of CWD positive animals within and between deer breeding facilities and release sites associated with such facilities indicate a continuing need for improvement and adaptive management of the disease. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eighteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules on the basis that the severity of the threat of CWD justifies the prohibition of deer breeding altogether. The department responds that under Parks and Wildlife Code, Chapter 43, Subchapter L, the department must issue a deer breeding permit to a qualified person; thus, the commission cannot prohibit deer breeding. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Seventeen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and made vague accusations of monetary gain providing the incentive for the rules ("follow the money," "it's all about the money," "just a money grab"). The department disagrees with the comments and responds that such allegations are unjustified. The department operates within a budget that is appropriated by the legislature, with numerous oversight features designed to prevent and detect misuse of public funds. In addition, agency revenues and expenditures are a matter of public record, available for inspection at any time. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Seventeen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the commission is corrupt. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that such accusations are untrue. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Sixteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed on the basis that the department and the commission are engaging in a smear campaign, propaganda, fear-mongering, or scare tactics to influence the general public. The department disagrees that the rules as proposed or adopted are based on anything less than valid science, the facts, and the department's statutory duty to protect and conserve the state's wildlife resources. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Sixteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that CWD doesn't or cannot harm and poses no risk to humans. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that certain spongiform encephalopathies (the family of diseases including CWD) are known to have become interspecifically transmissible, including spillover to humans. Recent research suggests that CWD may have zoonotic potential and the Centers for Disease Control as well as the World Health Organization recommend that humans avoid consumption of CWD-positive animals. In any case, the rules as adopted are intended to address the management of CWD in deer populations; the protection of human health and safety is an ancillary benefit. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Fourteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated displeasure with provisions repeating statutory language regarding permanent, visible identification on breeder deer at release sites. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that by statute, the required ear tags cannot be removed except to replace a damaged ear tag. Nevertheless, the commission has directed the removal of language regarding permanent identification from the rules as adopted.

Thirteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that CWD cannot be eradicated and hasn't been eradicated in free range herds. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that there are examples where the rapid detection and intensive management of CWD in free-range herds appears to have prevented further detections. Even within Texas, no further detections have been found in Del Rio (three free-ranging positives) and Lubbock (one free-ranging positive) for at least two hunting seasons following the timely, intensive efforts to remove native deer. The department does recognize, though, that in areas where CWD has become established (in animals, the environment, or both), efficient eradication of the disease may not be possible; however, it is precisely because it is difficult if not impossible to eradicate CWD once it is established that it is imperative to keep the disease from spreading. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Thirteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed because the rules do not require all hunter-harvested deer to be tested/do not require testing of free-range deer at the same rate as breeder deer. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that because the department has implemented a statewide risk-based surveillance strategy, it is unnecessary to require the testing of all hunter-harvested deer. Captive populations (of any organism, and especially those that can be relocated in ways other than natural movement or dispersion) and free-ranging populations (of that organism) with limited natural ranges of movement present entirely different disease management realities that cannot be conflated or compared. The rules as adopted implement demonstrably necessary and scientifically defensible measures to reduce the likelihood of disease transmission between deer breeding facilities and release sites. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eleven commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that in various ways that the department's surveillance efforts with respect to free-ranging populations are intentionally inadequate or insufficient because the department does not want to acknowledge the existence or prevalence of CWD in free-ranging populations, which would prove the department's animus towards deer breeders and defeat the premise that CWD surveillance in breeding facilities is necessary. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that such assertions are objectively false, as is the inference that deer breeders are being unfairly regulated. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eleven commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that EHD (Epizootic Hemorrhagic Disease) is a bigger threat than CWD and the department doesn't do/isn't doing anything about it. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that EHD and CWD are completely different diseases with different transmission pathways. EHD is spread via insects, which the department has no ability to control, while a known major pathway for spread of CWD is the transfer of infected deer by unnatural means (such as haulage), which the department does have the ability to influence in a way that mitigates disease transmission risk. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eleven commenters opposed adoption and stated the rules as proposed would hurt property values. The department disagrees with the comment and responds that the rules prescribe testing requirements for the transfer of breeder deer between deer breeders and enhances surveillance requirements at trace-out release sites, neither which can be demonstrated to affect property values. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Ten commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that one day is not enough for test sample submission from release sites epidemiologically linked to positive breeding facilities. The department agrees with the comment and has made changes accordingly.

Nine commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the rules are unnecessary because deer breeders are breeding CWD out of deer, and six commenters stated that the department should be working with breeders in that effort. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that CWD continues to be detected in deer breeding facilities and at the present time there is no indication that there are breeder deer incapable of contracting CWD; thus, it is imperative to use the tools available now to try to slow or stop the spread of CWD instead of waiting for techniques that have yet to be developed or proven. The department also notes that it is funding research projects to investigate genetic approaches to combating CWD. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Nine commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that deer breeders already test every deer. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that because some deer breeders were unable for whatever reason to comply with rules requiring 100 percent of deer mortalities occurring within the facility to be tested (post-mortem testing is considered to be the definitive standard), the department implemented rules allowing ante-mortem testing at sufficient intensity to substitute for missing mortalities. Nevertheless, breeder deer are not currently tested frequently enough with respect to the volume and frequency at which breeder deer are transferred between deer breeders on even a monthly basis. In fact, the rules as adopted are not ideal in this regard and represent a minimum standard for achieving confidence that CWD is not being spread. The department has repeatedly explained that ante-mortem testing is less reliable at ascertaining whether an individual animal is truly uninfected with CWD, but it has significant value as a screening test for ascertaining the CWD status of a herd. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Nine commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that CWD is scrapie and therefore no response is warranted. Thirteen commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated in some form or fashion that CWD is the same thing as scrapie and indicated that this should alter the department's approach to CWD management. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that CWD is a cervid disease that is without question related to scrapie, a similar disease found in sheep, but in any case, this distinction is irrelevant in the context of disease surveillance, response, and management actions as scrapie is itself another disease justifying state and federal regulatory action, including depopulation of flocks infected with scrapie. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eight commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the rules are unnecessary because CWD can be spread in many ways and deer are far more likely to die from other causes anyway. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that CWD is an existential threat to captive and free-ranging deer populations and although CWD can be spread in many ways, the majority of CWD detections thus far have occurred in deer breeding facilities, increasing the probability of spreading the disease by the movement of breeder deer through human agency. Regardless of how CWD spreads, the department has an obligation to mitigate the spread of the disease and manage the disease through appropriate regulations. The department also notes that a deer infected by CWD is highly likely to die from some other cause because of the debilitating, disorienting nature of the disease. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Eight commenters opposed adoption of the rules as proposed and stated that the commission doesn't or likely doesn't consider public comment. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that each commissioner received a verbatim copy of all public comments. Additionally, staff provided a summary of public comment at the time of the commission meeting, which included a synopsis of the content of public comment. No changes were made as a result of the comments.

Seven commenters opposed adoption and stated that the legislature is the appropriate body to manage CWD response and regulate deer breeders, eight commenters opposed adoption and stated that regulation should be left up to local officials, three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the department is engaging in extra-legislative action, and three commenters opposed adoption and stated that the rules should be subject to a vote by the public. The department disagrees with the comments and responds that the legislature has delegated to the Parks and Wildlife Commission the authority to promulgate rules governing white-tailed deer held in captivity by persons with a deer breeders permit, that local officials do not enjoy that authority, and that under the Administrative Procedure Act, department rules are implemented by vote of the Parks and Wildlife Commission after the opportunity is provided for public comment, as provided by statute. No changes were made as a result of the comments.