It appears you don't have support to open PDFs in this web browser. To view this file, Open with your PDF reader
Abstract
The successful mitigation of emerging wildlife diseases may involve controversial host culling. For livestock, ‘preemptive host culling’ is an accepted practice involving the removal of herds with known contact to infected populations. When applied to wildlife, this proactive approach comes in conflict with biodiversity conservation goals. Here, we present an alternative approach of ‘proactive hunting surveillance’ with the aim of early disease detection that simultaneously avoids undesirable population decline by targeting demographic groups with (1) a higher likelihood of being infected and (2) a lower reproductive value. We applied this harvesting principle to populations of reindeer to substantiate freedom of chronic wasting disease (CWD) infection. Proactive hunting surveillance reached 99% probability of freedom from infection (<4 reindeer infected) within 3–5 years, in comparison to ~10 years using ordinary harvest surveillance. However, implementation uncertainties linked to social issues appear challenging also with this kind of host culling.
Rarely are the outcomes of mathematical (probability) models of wildlife disease detection used to inform policy or management changes. Here the authors develop a proactive hunting surveillance program that shortened the time required to establish freedom from chronic wasting disease at the population level in reindeer.
You have requested "on-the-fly" machine translation of selected content from our databases. This functionality is provided solely for your convenience and is in no way intended to replace human translation. Show full disclaimer
Neither ProQuest nor its licensors make any representations or warranties with respect to the translations. The translations are automatically generated "AS IS" and "AS AVAILABLE" and are not retained in our systems. PROQUEST AND ITS LICENSORS SPECIFICALLY DISCLAIM ANY AND ALL EXPRESS OR IMPLIED WARRANTIES, INCLUDING WITHOUT LIMITATION, ANY WARRANTIES FOR AVAILABILITY, ACCURACY, TIMELINESS, COMPLETENESS, NON-INFRINGMENT, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. Your use of the translations is subject to all use restrictions contained in your Electronic Products License Agreement and by using the translation functionality you agree to forgo any and all claims against ProQuest or its licensors for your use of the translation functionality and any output derived there from. Hide full disclaimer
Details





1 University of Oslo, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, Oslo, Norway (GRID:grid.5510.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8921)
2 Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Oslo, Norway (GRID:grid.410549.d) (ISNI:0000 0000 9542 2193)
3 Norwegian Food Safety Authority, Head Office, Brumunddal, Norway (GRID:grid.457859.2) (ISNI:0000 0004 0611 1705)
4 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research (NINA), Trondheim, Norway (GRID:grid.420127.2) (ISNI:0000 0001 2107 519X)
5 University of Oslo, Centre for Ecological and Evolutionary Synthesis (CEES), Department of Biosciences, Oslo, Norway (GRID:grid.5510.1) (ISNI:0000 0004 1936 8921); Norwegian Veterinary Institute, Oslo, Norway (GRID:grid.410549.d) (ISNI:0000 0000 9542 2193)