Reading comprehension is not a strong point for many on here. One question I did have Matt was the most recent testing indicated that "After 2009, county level sampling goals were set based on estimated population levels, placing the statewide sampling goal at 299 animals each year" then it increased to 500 animals in 2016. According to the infinitely wise Chuck Sykes, the Alabama deer population is estimated at over 1,000,000 animals with others estimating it still being as high as 1,600,000. I personally do not think it is even 1 million animals anymore but for the sake of argument, let's split the difference and assume it is 1,300,000 animals.

I fully understand statistical sampling and regression model analysis as well as sample sizing. Testing 500 animals in 2016/2017 means that the state of Alabama is testing less than 4/100 ths of one percent of the herd (assuming 1.3 million animals) on an annual basis. In the sample design provided, I understand and completely agree that if you randomly test 299 animals out of 100,000 you have a 95% chance of obtaining a single positive animal if (and only if) you have a 1% prevalence rate of CWD evenly distributed across that 100,000 animal sample. I would challenge that the sample design is invalid for 2 reasons:
1. CWD is not nor would it ever be evenly distributed across the statewide population as evidenced by the charts included which show the known infected areas over the past 20 yrs in the continental US. It is very spotty in most states and certainly not evenly distributed by any means.
2. Not only is the 1% not evenly distributed across the population, but that 1% assumed prevalence rate being used in the sample design for Alabama would seem to be ridiculously high at 1 out of every 100 animals being infected, which in turn would yield an abnormally low and statistically invalid required sampling rate to achieve that 95% confidence rate that the state is relying on. I would venture to guess that the prevalence rate used on the sample design should've been more like 1/10th of one percent which would have required drastically more sampling to obtain that same 95% confidence that the state is relying on.

These are my initial observations in reading the response document. Would you say that I'm correct in my analysis and if not, please explain why. Was the sample size abnormally low due to the cost and labor of obtaining and testing samples or was it low due to the fact that CWD had not been found in surrounding states, or was a 1% infected rate the point at which the state would be concerned? Please dont take this as me being smart or throwing rocks, Just trying to understand the state's reasoning with regard to the sampling plan developed. I personally commend the state for already having a document and plan of action drafted to deal with the situation and being proactive in trying to stay ahead of it. I'd also like to publicly thank you for providing the document and for your support and the information you and others regularly provide on this site.