AGAIN, you opt to leave out what doesn't support your preconceptions: 1.) Does outnumber bucks in ALL geographies where CWD exists in those two counties. YOU apparently missed the frequently repeated statistic that is driving both the monitoring and the management of CWD in Michigan. What incidence of occurrence was scribed to calculate how many deer were needed by geographic unit for monitoring purposes? Answer: An incidence of .01%. Why? At values above this, CWD is essentially ubiquitous on the landscape from a control and management application(s) perspective. NOW, look at the statistics you quote for Dane and Iowa counties. Wisconsin officials scribed too limited an area initially and CWD was far too common to contain within that area. THAT is the lesson we should be taking away from what is being done in Wisconsin, and what has been done!