CWD Concern and SE Wyoming Deer & Elk

[Wrench]

I just dropped off 2 elk heads to our bios. I asked what they have seen so far. Last year there were 2 cases....this year 2 cases and one on the Spokane rez.

Seems like a lot of hype for a nothing sandwich.

 

[Laramie]

I just dropped off 2 elk heads to our bios. I asked what they have seen so far. Last year there were 2 cases....this year 2 cases and one on the Spokane rez.

Seems like a lot of hype for a nothing sandwich.

In your area of the country, I would agree. Why bother testing if it isn't required.

 

[Laramie]

All the best big buck areas are in the cwd hot zones. I’m not sure there is any correlation.

Alternatively in the northern areas where it is not as prevalent we see much fewer mature deer.

Haven't thought s lot about it before but I'm guessing it has a lower impact on trophy potential in whitetails since they tend to peak at 4-6 where mule deer are 5-7 years old.

 

[Cordell Walker]

Nothing like living and hunting for decades in the WI CWD hot zone.

Here is the data YOU used to support your null argument.

The most recent official surveillance report for Illinois (FY 2025; July 1, 2024 – June 30, 2025) provides good statewide data, but it only breaks down prevalence for the CWD endemic area, not the entire state as a single figure. So there simply isn’t data for the ENTIRE state of IL overall as you state. The best estimate FROM IL is:

“Within the 21-county CWD endemic area, the apparent prevalence was ~9.2%.”

https://ngrrec-hunt-illinois-wordpress-images.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/09110843/CWDAnnualReport2024-2025.pdf

Now for WI which has far more complete data. Cause as everyone knows WI is just better than IL in every way.

“Statewide estimated CWD prevalence ~10 % among tested wild deer in Wisconsin.” Note, this is nearly identical to IL not the 2% you are claiming to be true.

Wisconsin sampling uncovers 10% overall CWD rate, 21% in south

The state DNR said that 89% of the positive cases were found in the Southern Farmland Zone.

www.cidrap.umn.edu

So in SUMMARY WI is around 10% and IL is around 9.2%. So statistically their prevalence rates are identical.

You also claim IL is somehow in the midst of some major culling effort, also unfounded.

“Illinois has shifted its CWD management approach, with a five-year pilot project beginning in 2025 focusing on sustainable management rather than eradication.”

Illinois aiming for a sustainable approach to managing chronic wasting disease

The Illinois Department of Natural Resources is taking a new approach to managing chronic wasting disease (CWD) in a five-year pilot project, which aims at sustainability.

chicago.suntimes.com

https://v3-wp.huntillinois.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/11/CWDProgramUpdates2024.pdf

So there you have it. Everything you claim is incorrect. And people wonder why the majority have moved on from CWD hysteria in favor of it being nothing to worry about.

If you care to respond please provide links dispelling what i’ve provided.

Not a great comparison here. 89% of the WI CWD cases are in the southern farmland zones as it says in your link. Statistically they are not the same as the IL percent positive (9.9%) is looking at the endemic area and the WI percent positive (10%) is the whole state.

The percent of deer with CWD in the endemic area of WI, Sauk and Richland counties, is around 30% for 2025. Don’t forget that Richland county saw its lowest buck harvest in 45 years last year. While many other farmland counties had their best or top 5 buck harvest.

The low harvest could be explained by CWD causing there to be less bucks, less bucks worth shooting ie. only small bucks around, or decreased hunter effort due to not wanting to harvest a CWD positive deer.

 

[mt terry d]

I agree that not all things line up. I have picked up 3 larger dead heads in the last 10 years. That isn't a lot but it is more than I found in the 20 years prior to that? I honestly chalked them up to winter kill or poor shot placement by a hunter. Could have been CWD? The only data we have to go off of is the testing conducted at check stations or by hunters who submit samples for testing.

Curious, would you eat a positive tested deer?

I expect I have. I think our area (region 5) is one of the higher areas
I have zero concern about it.
I only discarded one animal (of probably over 150) ever and that was an antelope that I shot which i discovered had been gut shot probably a couple days earlier and stink to high heaven
If I was concerned about eating a possible +testing CWD animal I’d have the decency to quit hunting them altogether ( which is one of the main purposes for all the hoopla about it)

 

[Rich M]

I’m not eating a critter testing positive for any disease. CWD or other.

I do want to shoot an elk. Are they impacted as much as the deer?

 

[willfrye027]

I shot a nice buck near Laramie a few years ago. They took a sample and pulled a tooth for aging. Sample got lost..I was really bummed about not getting to know the age of that deer. He did eat good. Based on prevalence I’ve probably eaten a CWD deer or two…I’d rather not know. I don’t think I could eat one if I did know, and I don’t think I could stomach throwing one away either.

 

[Coveyleader]

No way I’m eating one, and they will go straight to the dumpster if they test positive. There are places in CO right now where 1 out of every 2 deer are positive, and the infection rate on bucks is most likely higher.


In regards to not seeing sick deer, and finding carcasses, Coyotes take care of dead deer overnight in most places and finding even a blood spot where the carcasses once was is rare at best.

 

[Laramie]

I’m not eating a critter testing positive for any disease. CWD or other.

I do want to shoot an elk. Are they impacted as much as the deer?

They aren't currently if you stay out of SE Wyoming.

 

[mt terry d]

In regards to not seeing sick deer, and finding carcasses, Coyotes take care of dead deer overnight in most places and finding even a blood spot where the carcasses once was is rare at best.

So basically any claims of numbers or rates of death due to CWD are complete speculation, correct?

Like the MTFWP guy Robbie interviewed who claimed “we do know that it would be worse than if we’d done nothing”
No. We don’t know that. Where’s your control group?
It’s statements like that that destroy any credibility.

 

[Predator_SD]

I’m not eating a critter testing positive for any disease. CWD or other.

I do want to shoot an elk. Are they impacted as much as the deer?

Have you tested all your deer for all possible human transmittable, or any diseases, prior to eating them? If not how do you know you haven’t eaten a deer with a disease already?

I’d bet it’s like 100% that you have with zero consequences.

 

[Predator_SD]

No way I’m eating one, and they will go straight to the dumpster if they test positive. There are places in CO right now where 1 out of every 2 deer are positive, and the infection rate on bucks is most likely higher.


In regards to not seeing sick deer, and finding carcasses, Coyotes take care of dead deer overnight in most places and finding even a blood spot where the carcasses once was is rare at best.

Why not eat one? I’m not messing with you i am genuinely interested in why you wouldn’t. CWD doesn’t effect humans i’d bet there have been countless CWD positive animals eaten to date. Unless you’ve tested every animal you’ve ever consumed you may have already.

 

[Predator_SD]

Not a great comparison here. 89% of the WI CWD cases are in the southern farmland zones as it says in your link. Statistically they are not the same as the IL percent positive (9.9%) is looking at the endemic area and the WI percent positive (10%) is the whole state.

The percent of deer with CWD in the endemic area of WI, Sauk and Richland counties, is around 30% for 2025. Don’t forget that Richland county saw its lowest buck harvest in 45 years last year. While many other farmland counties had their best or top 5 buck harvest.

The low harvest could be explained by CWD causing there to be less bucks, less bucks worth shooting ie. only small bucks around, or decreased hunter effort due to not wanting to harvest a CWD positive deer.

It’s impossible to compare whole states numbers.

IL doesn’t keep data and WI data are estimates like most everything CWD. The fact is 99% of deer killed are never even tested.

Which was my point.

As to lower buck harvests there is zero actual or even anecdotal evidence that’s caused by CWD. Logic would point more to the increased buck kill during bow season since the inclusion of crossbows and the creation of late season anterless only gun hunts in December.

Crossbow hunters are targeting (and killing) bucks at double the rate they’re targeting does. Plus, it’s well known that countless shed bucks are also being killed in the late season Dec 4 day anterless and anterless Holiday Gun hunts. No surprise the age class and number of bucks on the landscape are declining.

 

[Coveyleader]

So basically any claims of numbers or rates of death due to CWD are complete speculation, correct?

Like the MTFWP guy Robbie interviewed who claimed “we do know that it would be worse than if we’d done nothing”
No. We don’t know that. Where’s your control group?
It’s statements like that that destroy any credibility.

No it’s not speculation. I do know the percentage for the area I’m talking about, as per the area biologist. Sadly,
the ratio of deer we’ve tested is almost double what the official rate for the area is. That’s not up for discussion. The area is riddled with CWD and as someone who has hunted that area for almost 25 years, sure, CWD isn’t the only thing killing the top end deer off, but there are way less, and almost all the bucks tested are positive. It’s having an effect.

I’m not, and never have been in favor of culling deer and elk to “see if they have it” as was done previously with effects still not reversed since that was done, but the fact is, the disease at this point is unstoppable. I’ll stand by my statement of any deer tested positive, will hit the dumpster.

 

[Lawnboi]

Regardless of what the DNR is saying, take a drive through Richland county during the rut.

It’s like going to a high point unit out west.

I’m not buying it. I’m not full tinfoil and I’m not going to eat cwd brains. I havnt seen anything in my lifetime to make me believe that cwd is hurting whitetail deer.

I do know what is. Stacking does 14 deep off one property so the DNR can test them.

 

[wytx]

Sky is not falling.
Been hunting this region for 37 years. Had a grand total of 2 deer test positive for cwd and maybe 3 elk.
Taken at least 40 elk out of area 6 and mature mule deer buck every year in area 59.
Took 2 nice mature bucks this year , both negative. Same last year.

We also have good biologist and research contacts, head of the Vet Lab and many of the guys who have written papers on the subject.
I wouldn't worry too much but get your animal tested if you're concerned.
Head of the vet lab was pretty confident at least 1 of our deer would be positive, guess what- neither was.
Had a nice talk with her about aging every deer they test and she said makes perfect sense.
Pointed out to her how you say no mature bucks in area 59 due to cwd when you don't age them?
And our bucks are getting aged.
Be interesting to talk with her after that age comes in.

Empirical date suggests deer herds may suffer but the guys we talked with that wrote the papers and did the studies say the herds will survive.

 

[Coveyleader]

When I hunt in areas where the infection rate is super low, I don’t even submit for testing. When one out of every two deer or more is infected, I don’t eat anything without testing.

 

[Rich M]

Have you tested all your deer for all possible human transmittable, or any diseases, prior to eating them? If not how do you know you haven’t eaten a deer with a disease already?

I’d bet it’s like 100% that you have with zero consequences.

Where are they saying to check deer for human diseases? You have my attention.

I am aware of many areas requiring or strongly suggesting cwd testing, and disposal of the meat if positive. They do not promote just eating positive meat.

Do talk to me like i might understand something. Due to the whole internet experts syndrome, my patience is limited and tolerance for bullshit very low.

You might be a state biologist, but dont worry, i work closely with folks like that and can discuss it with them after the holidays. The guy i lunch with is well versed in viral pathogens and the spread. I just tell people if they can drink the water or eat the dirt.

Also kill and process my own stuff. So no butchers sneezing on the meat.

The whole lyme thing is interesting as they are spirals too. Weird thing was i didnt see a tick or louse on this year’s buck. First ever w no bugs.

 

[Laramie]

Sky is not falling.
Been hunting this region for 37 years. Had a grand total of 2 deer test positive for cwd and maybe 3 elk.
Taken at least 40 elk out of area 6 and mature mule deer buck every year in area 59.
Took 2 nice mature bucks this year , both negative. Same last year.

We also have good biologist and research contacts, head of the Vet Lab and many of the guys who have written papers on the subject.
I wouldn't worry too much but get your animal tested if you're concerned.
Head of the vet lab was pretty confident at least 1 of our deer would be positive, guess what- neither was.
Had a nice talk with her about aging every deer they test and she said makes perfect sense.
Pointed out to her how you say no mature bucks in area 59 due to cwd when you don't age them?
And our bucks are getting aged.
Be interesting to talk with her after that age comes in.

Empirical date suggests deer herds may suffer but the guys we talked with that wrote the papers and did the studies say the herds will survive.

I never said the sky was falling. I'm using the data provided by those biologists. Absolutely some deer test negative but the reality is hunters have a drastically higher chance of their deer or elk testing positive in SE wyoming. For those concerned with eating a CWD positive animal, I'm suggesting they apply in areas with lower prevalence.

Not sure where your argument is?

 

[cnelk]

I was under the impression that the CWD testing was funded by grants. When grants arent supplemented, the testing is variable at best.

On another note (i.e. Colorado) when CWD testing is mandatory that is just another way of using testing for harvest data