LANDER -- Critics of Wyoming's wildlife management practices often cite the state's federal and state winter elk feedgrounds as the cause for Wyoming's brucellosis problems.

But the reality of the disease is a whole lot more complicated than many people realize, according to Wyoming Game and Fish Department Director Terry Cleveland.

Eliminating elk feedgrounds would not eliminate the disease in elk, he said.

Feedground elk have been widely documented as having higher rates of brucellosis infection compared to elk that forage on natural winter range, because elk on feedgrounds become artificially concentrated, which increases rates of disease transmission.

But researchers have recently discovered some free-ranging elk populations in the Yellowstone region that don't interact with feedground elk, yet have equally high or higher rates of brucellosis infection, Cleveland said.

"There are people opposed to feedgrounds, such as the groups litigating against them right now," Cleveland said. "But if we close the feedgrounds, those animals are simply going to have a greater opportunity to commingle with livestock, and, at least in the short term, the potential for transmission between elk and cattle will greatly increase."

Asked about the possibility of simply fencing in cattle feedlines in western Wyoming during the period when brucellosis transmission is most likely -- Feb. 5 through June 15 -- Cleveland said the solution might be employed in some locations, but it wouldn't be a viable solution for other places.

The amount of additional fencing that would be required to fence in all cattle feedlines would obstruct essential migration corridors for deer, elk, moose and antelope in some western Wyoming locations, he said.

"Unless people are really well educated on the issue, they do not understand the complexities of this thing," Cleveland said. "It is a very, very complex issue. For example, we have some brucellosis prevalence in elk west of Cody that meets or exceeds levels on feedgrounds."