IMHO putting up the same statement like he did to me TWICE, rather than just explaining to us what he meant was condescending, if not being a wiseacre which was the word I used. Sorry you don't agree with that synopsis! To answer your question; yes, I read the entire link and know that she had various qualifications to her statement, but the emphasis on the article seems to be that 19% figure. Even though it appears to be high based on her qualified statements, the article appears to me to try and accentuate that 19% figure. If I'm wrong, it wouldn't be the first time, but having hunted in Wyoming for over 20 years and living in an area here in MI close to where CWD has been found I'm probably up on the disease more than most people.
How much time have you spent in Converse County and Laramie Peak hunting or observing deer?
Probably not more than a couple hours on your CDROM.
I don't doubt that 19% figure at all...the population crashed by almost 7K deer in 10 years give or take. That's significant, and there's a reason why there are 7K less deer there.
Plus, its mentioned right in the article that lions are killing more deer than CWD, but again, if you READ the article, it sounds to me like CWD infection rates, could be why lions are hammering them so hard. The lions in that area are also being hunted pretty hard, so its not like theres a lion behind every piece of sage brush.
Plus, a 19% decline doesn't mean in 5 years that you're left with only a few animals. A lot of these declines happen very fast, sort of hit rock bottom, then the decline slows or the populations stay flat. This happens for lots of reasons including things like deer densities decreasing, which decreases exposure rates to CWD, less prey less predators, and the list goes on and on.
Like any research, it often leads to more questions and more research.
But, to basically come on a board and hammer the research and researcher because you have a cdrom and have been hunting a completely different part of WY, for a couple weeks a year, over the last 20 years is ridiculous...and reckless.
Sorry, but I don't put much faith in your "research" or opinion.