Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Chronic Wasting Disease topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Wildlife agency reports early chronic wasting disease detections in Spokane area and expands surveillance

Wildlife Committee · June 11, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At a June 11 wildlife committee briefing, state wildlife staff described the program’s first confirmed chronic wasting disease (CWD) detections in the Greater Spokane area, new permanent rules to limit carcass transport and feeding, mandatory sampling in Region 1 and plans to increase surveillance after additional tribal and private‑lab notifications.

At a June 11 briefing of the Wildlife Committee, Hunter Westacott, the state CWD surveillance coordinator, described the department’s detection of chronic wasting disease in the Greater Spokane area and the surveillance and regulatory actions now in place.

"Once we know of a detection, we're well behind the 8 ball," Westacott said, summarizing the challenge of responding to prion diseases in free‑ranging animals. He told commissioners the first confirmed positive in the state was found in spring 2024 in the Fairwood suburb along the Little Spokane River and that the department moved from emergency measures to permanent rules approved in March 2024 and implemented the following May.

The department has identified 11 CWD surveillance units in eastern Washington based on game management units and harvest statistics and set a sampling target of about 300 animals per unit to reach 95% confidence of detecting 1% prevalence. Westacott said the agency collected more than 4,000 samples in the most recent surveillance year after hiring five additional technicians and instituting mandatory sample submission in Region 1. Reported prevalence in sampled animals in individual GMUs remained below 1% in the most recent year (examples cited by staff in the briefing included ~0.55%–0.9% in sampled animals).

Department staff described regulatory and operational steps already taken: mandatory sample submission in Region 1, transportation restrictions that limit moving high‑risk carcass parts out of eastern Washington, statewide prohibitions on baiting and on feeding deer, and the move from emergency rules to the permanent rule package that took effect in May 2024. Westacott also reported a positive detection under the Spokane Tribe’s separate surveillance program on the Spokane Reservation and said the department had been notified by a private lab of a potential positive in GMU 101 that was not submitted through the state's program; the department said it will increase sampling in GMU 101 to verify that result.

The briefing emphasized containment, not eradication, as the realistic near‑term goal. Westacott noted that once CWD is established the prions are persistent in the environment and management options become more limited. The agency said it is continuing mandatory sampling in Region 1, planning to increase targeted sampling where uncertain results have been reported, and pursuing a structured decision‑making process for management of Oak Creek elk feed sites in collaboration with USGS.

Next steps described to the committee include continuing Region 1 mandatory submission, increasing field presence and sample collection in GMU 101 to resolve the private‑lab report, rotating or expanding surveillance as resources allow, and using structured decision frameworks for feed‑site management. The department also flagged ongoing communication and outreach to hunters and landowners as essential to collection and reporting efforts.

The committee did not take formal action during the meeting; commissioners asked follow‑up questions about extrapolating sample prevalence to landscape estimates and about resource constraints for statewide sampling. The department cautioned that sample‑based prevalence in harvested animals should not be directly translated into precise landscape counts without robust population estimates and broader sampling outside Region 1.