4.5 Article

The importance of localized culling in stabilizing chronic wasting disease prevalence in white-tailed deer populations

Journal

PREVENTIVE VETERINARY MEDICINE
Volume 113, Issue 1, Pages 139-145

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.prevetmed.2013.09.011

Keywords

Culling; Prion; Chronic wasting disease; White-tailed deer; Wildlife; Prevalence; Disease management

Funding

  1. US Fish & Wildlife Service Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Project [W-146-R]
  2. University of Illinois Office of the Vice Chancellor for Research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Strategies to contain the spread of disease often are developed with incomplete knowledge of the possible outcomes but are intended to minimize the risks associated with delaying control. Culling of game species by government agencies is one approach to control disease in wild populations but is unpopular with hunters and wildlife enthusiasts, politically unpalatable, and erodes public support for agencies responsible for wildlife management. We addressed the functional differences between hunting and government culling programs for managing chronic wasting disease (CWD) in white-tailed deer by comparing prevalence over a 10-year period in Illinois and Wisconsin. When both Illinois and Wisconsin were actively culling from 2003 - 2007, there were no statistical differences between state CWD prevalence estimates. Wisconsin government culling concluded in 2007 and average prevalence over the next five years was 3.09 +/- 1.13% with an average annual increase of 0.63%. During that same time period, Illinois continued government culling and there was no change in prevalence throughout Illinois. Despite its unpopularity among hunters, localized culling is a disease management strategy that can maintain low disease prevalence while minimizing impacts on recreational deer harvest. (C) 2013 The Authors. Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available