Having read the abstract, intro and discussion in the original reference (
Wild et al. 2011), I find that the most important and solidly supported conclusion of the work is the first sentence of the Discussion as quoted by the WKR:
"Despite expending considerable field effort and adhering closely to management objectives, we did not uniformly reduce CWD prevalence through selective culling."
The rest of the discussion addresses what may have gone wrong in, or how to improve, the study. The excerpts quoted in the post above about predators are speculation about an unmeasured parameter that is beyond the scope of the work in the paper. They are WAG comments tossed in the last paragraph of the paper for drama and which are typically used to justify grants for, or to direct, later research.
Finally, this comment by the WKR:
"...predators are highly effective, efficient, and do a heck of a great job of "culling" the few weak and sick CWD positive deer that exist!"
...is not remotely supported by the quoted excerpts or anything else in the paper, but rather is the underlying assumption that is required to be true for the speculations about the effectiveness of predation to be true, and which has been demonstrated again and again to be false.
Besides the speculation at the end, the paper was well written and had clear conclusions.
The muddle-headed extrapolation to wolf-love by the peanut gallery was not useful.