The most accurate draw odds ever
Have a chance to win hunts and gear every month — over $100,000 per year
Access strategy & tips to help you apply & spend more time in the field
Statistics and historical data to find top producing trophy units
Detailed overview of how to apply and hunt in each state
Your quick dashboard for important dates, benefits, and the latest giveaways
8 people just won a Stone Glacier EVO 40/56 backpack -
posted 1 year ago
I can’t believe I won! I’m super stoked!
Study finds CWD could infect humans -
posted 2 years ago
Liz, each state is different so you will need to research your specific state. In general, the state's division of wildlife field offices are collection points. It would be best to drive straight there with the deer/elk prior to butchering if possible. They remove and test lymph nodes below the base of the skull. If you have to butcher the animal to get it out of the field, you will need to leave approximately 4" of neck attached below the base of the skull.
Some states are free while others charge a nominal fee. Results are available within a few weeks.
I expect more of a critical eye be paid to the content of this type of article post before simply rehashing a few points from a biased source article. While the topic of CWD is uncertain I personally am going to take zero chances and get all deer/elk tested to significantly reduce my family's exposure to something that may or may not cross the species barrier.
That being said, the source article grossly misrepresents the data from Colorado. It states that 1/3 of all elk and 1/2 of all deer are CWD positive. Strangely they provide a link to the CO website that refutes their shocking claim. The one word they left out was "herd". 1/3 of all elk herds have had a positive result of those tested. The percentage of positive results per unit with confirmed CWD ranges from less than 1% up to 5%-10%. So instead of 33% of elk positive it is more like 0.2%-2.5%. That is a ridiculous order of magnitude error for any legitimate scientific based article to get wrong. It draws into question the validity of the rest of the article.
Additionally, this experiment is only partially complete and the findings have not been peer reviewed. I am surprised this site reposted the story in the manner it did without identifying the very evident flaws of the source article.