thumbnail

From the field: Efficacy of detecting Chronic Wasting Disease via sampling hunter-killed white-tailed deer

Wildlife Society Bulletin
By: , and 

Links

  • The Publications Warehouse does not have links to digital versions of this publication at this time
  • Download citation as: RIS | Dublin Core

Abstract

Surveillance programs for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) in free-ranging cervids often use a standard of being able to detect 1% prevalence when determining minimum sample sizes. However, 1% prevalence may represent >10,000 infected animals in a population of 1 million, and most wildlife managers would prefer to detect the presence of CWD when far fewer infected animals exist. We wanted to detect the presence of CWD in white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) in Pennsylvania when the disease was present in only 1 of 21 wildlife management units (WMUs) statewide. We used computer simulation to estimate the probability of detecting CWD based on a sampling design to detect the presence of CWD at 0.1% and 1.0% prevalence (23-76 and 225-762 infected deer, respectively) using tissue samples collected from hunter-killed deer. The probability of detection at 0.1% prevalence was <30% with sample sizes of ???6,000 deer, and the probability of detection at 1.0% prevalence was 46-72% with statewide sample sizes of 2,000-6,000 deer. We believe that testing of hunter-killed deer is an essential part of any surveillance program for CWD, but our results demonstrated the importance of a multifaceted surveillance approach for CWD detection rather than sole reliance on testing hunter-killed deer.

Additional publication details

Publication type Article
Publication Subtype Journal Article
Title From the field: Efficacy of detecting Chronic Wasting Disease via sampling hunter-killed white-tailed deer
Series title Wildlife Society Bulletin
Volume 32
Issue 1
Year Published 2004
Language English
Larger Work Type Article
Larger Work Subtype Journal Article
Larger Work Title Wildlife Society Bulletin
First page 267
Last page 272
Google Analytic Metrics Metrics page
Additional metadata about this publication, not found in other parts of the page is in this table