1) Reduce mature buck numbers = slower spread/lower prevalence. 2) Reduce deer densities = slower spread/lower prevalence In my opinion the jury is still out on these concepts on wild herds and it’s evolving science at this point. Disagree?
Respectfully, I think it’s a mischaracterization to say they “jumped to conclusions” on those. Basic epidemiological principles still suggest those strategies are likely viable though the timing is probably critical. I do agree that we have limited data on the effects of those management strategies on wild populations specific to CWD, primarily because the public will not tolerate gathering said data. IMO, it’s not evolving science when no one is allowed to test it. For all intents and purposes, it’s dead.
There’s a difference between fully implementing a strategy and truly assessing the results, vs half-assing it and giving up early due to public outcry, then having folks saying “see?!?!? It didn’t work!!!” At this point we’ll never know…it’s far too late for either of those strategies now and the public won’t tolerate them anyway.
The only example we have of total commitment to depopulation worked in New York, still the only place it was really fully and rigorously implemented. 20 years without another positive case in the area. Truly remarkable. That’s a shame, since it’s coming from the neighboring states now who followed the ubiquitous “test and monitor” strategy. All for naught in the end I guess.
I completely agree that mule deer are screwed no matter what anyone does at this point. Just look at Saskatchewan. I noticed no one commented on the recent article someone posted. It was sobering, but I’m not surprised everyone ignored it. No one wants to acknowledge bad news I guess.
I also completely agree that not following the gold standard testing protocols and covering it up is unacceptable and detrimental to all agencies where credibility is concerned.