CWD research

[COEngineer]

Point being, many of these "models" are doomsday type modeling and IMO, very damaging when those models fall way short of the reality on the ground. I also think that prevalence is over-stated as well. I won't go into many details, but I know of a cwd prevalence in a deer herd in Wyoming that stated it was 67% via sampling 3 deer. Again, I think the researchers and GF agencies need to be cautious and transparent with their modeling, prevalence rates, etc. etc. If you want people to support your CWD management, it has to be reliable and solid factually. Some of what I've seen has given me pause in regard to CWD research techniques and models.

I can't find the raw data in a quick search but, "...five-year averages were calculated to ensure a significant sample size,” the WGFD wrote. “The Project herd in the Lander Region continues to have the highest CWD prevalence in the state at 66.3%. The Shoshone River herd in the Cody Region is second at 47.6%.”

I don't think it was 3 deer over five years.

 

[BuzzH]

I can't find the raw data in a quick search but, "...five-year averages were calculated to ensure a significant sample size,” the WGFD wrote. “The Project herd in the Lander Region continues to have the highest CWD prevalence in the state at 66.3%. The Shoshone River herd in the Cody Region is second at 47.6%.”

I don't think it was 3 deer over five years.

Yeah, see that's the issue I have. Why not just publish the sample size? I pushed back pretty hard on the sample size in a deer herd near me and again, not surprisingly, when more deer were sampled, prevalence declined pretty sharply from what I was told initially.

The other case I mentioned with the 3 deer and 67% prevalence, they are going to be killing more deer as obviously 3 deer isn't a big enough sample to determine jack diddly.

Its not like I'm anti CWD Management, and like I told those I met with from the GF, I would absolutely give up hunting mule deer the rest of my life to make sure they stay healthy over time. But, being in the Science field myself, I need to see the facts. I need to see controls, I need to see sampling methods, I need to see sample size, and everything else that goes into management decisions. In particular when its calling for hammering the older age class males in a population.

I'm not unreasonable but I need to be convinced.

 

[COEngineer]

I'm not unreasonable but I need to be convinced.

I don't think you are being unreasonable. I tend to believe the experts (WGFD, in this case) unless they give me reason to doubt them. Perhaps you have reason(s) to doubt them or you're just less trusting in general?

 

[BuzzH]

I don't think you are being unreasonable. I tend to believe the experts (WGFD, in this case) unless they give me reason to doubt them. Perhaps you have reason(s) to doubt them or you're just less trusting in general?

Yeah, I'm a bit less trusting because according to the "experts" elk in the Laramie Range should be at a minimum double digit prevalence by now according to the early modeling they presented 10-15 years ago. I find it hard to believe that elk will ever be extinct anytime soon there when: 1. cow/calf ratios are in the 30/100 plus range 2. we're issuing OTC unlimited cow permits. 3. We've hired people to kill elk to help control their numbers. 4. Prevalence hasn't changed over that time in spite of the modeling predictions and hovers in that 3-5% range.

I will grant a bit of graciousness that from what I've seen CWD doesn't appear to NOT happen in a one-size fits all scenario. I think there's still a lot of unknowns as well, so I don't want to be overly critical and/or skeptical. I've also heard that there is mounting evidence that CWD does not impact elk nearly as much as deer.

That said, when its declared that prevalence is 67% based on sampling 3 deer, I'm told that elk will be extinct in the Laramie Range, etc. its hard for me to fully get behind some of the management recommendations. I'm all about starting with the low hanging fruit, don't allow baiting, try to disperse animals as much as possible, concentrate efforts on hot spots, etc.

But, where I start to balk is when the discussion starts about late season hunting of mature mule deer bucks to kill them off, drastic population reductions, and even how those are conducted. One thing that I totally disagreed with was that proposed late seasons near me, there was not going to be any teeth behind mandatory testing. IMO, if we're going to conduct a 10 year plus reduction in mature buck mule deer, at the very least there should be MANDATORY, as in if you don't submit a sample you're heavily fined and/or lose you license for a couple years, mandatory. I see no value in killing off a segment of the population if we're not going to test 100% of the deer killed. It has to be worth it.

I want to do the right thing, but the problem is, I don't think anyone really knows what that is with CWD. My hope is that as more research is conducted, more things tried, perhaps doing the right thing will be clear. That's my take.

 

[Irrelevant]

from MT's CWD 2024 report. Its interesting that in some units the modeled results closely match the observed rates, while in others they grossly overestimate compared to the observed rates.

 

[mevertsen]

The prevalence and how high it would have to be is a big issue as well.

Here's Nevada's most recent report from this spring. Some areas are mandatory sampling.

Not sure where this fits in the discussion, other than just another data point, and I guess it shows there are a lot of unknowns in the situation.

https://www.ndow.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Fiscal-Year-2025-CWD-Report.pdf

 

[Hunting Wife]

What is that they say about models- they are never right, and only sometimes useful?

Models are only as good as the info and knowledge you have when you build them, so obviously imperfect knowledge makes imperfect models. However, they give us a measuring stick- do observations fit the model? If not, why not? What are we missing?

Plus sample sizes and sampling strategies are hugely influential. That likely accounts for some differences between model predictions and observed conditions, and I’m sure there are other factors that aren’t even on the radar yet at play. But we won’t know if we quit trying to figure it out.

 

[Bonasababy]

The simple fact is, some transmissible animal TSE’s DO transmit to humans. Why? What mechanism is it about that strain that confers that ability? Is it a character that is malleable in other TSE’s that could render them transmissible? If so, what types of exposures or conditions need to be present for that to happen? If it happens, what types of things might we do about it?

I don’t see anyone making any sky is falling statements. I see researchers still trying to understand something that has been elusive, and pulling threads trying to figure it out. That’s what science does. I’m not sure why this article generated this big of a reaction honestly.

I might take a more nuanced view than the OP, but I have some problems with its presentation.

I might have some bias, as the same group has been working on a live test for CWD for which IMO claims have been stretched -- and their work has been grabbed by deniers and captive deer folks as reason to attack measures to limit its spread and eliminate restrictions on captive herds...which have been clearly shown to be a major factor in CWD spread.

The research is interesting and worthwhile.

But fanning the flame of transfer to humans without mentioning the length of time humans have been known to have consumed meat from affected animals and the lack of any tie to transmission from doing so rubs me wrong.

Even if it is intentionally designed to generate fear supported funding/support for work that I support....