Whitefish mulls deer management after chronic wasting disease found in Flathead Valley

Whitefish City Council at a recent work session discussed the city's robust urban deer population with the first case of chronic wasting disease detected in the Flathead Valley last fall.

“Roughly, it’s a two-year death sentence for any deer that can get chronic wasting disease,” said Ethan Lula, wildlife biologist with Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks. “Symptoms really not showing until about 18 months.” 

Lula said the fatal neurological disease is slow moving and affects cervids like deer, elk and moose. He reiterated it does not affect cows or dogs and, as far as the evidence suggests, it does not affect people, but officials recommend against eating infected animals. 

The disease is spread, primarily, by animal-to-animal contact but can also spread by contact with contaminated soil or bodily fluids and tissues.  

“How CWD may be spread across the landscape is still, somewhat, a question that managers and researchers are looking at across the country,” Lula said.  

Lula said the disease was first detected in the Libby area in 2019. A management zone has been established and deer are being sampled and tested to determine the prevalence of the disease in the area. Sampling involves, primarily, the animal’s lymph nodes. 

In the Flathead Valley, a positive buck was found at the county landfill last fall. Thirty-four deer were killed, nine of which tested positive for the disease. Since then, a series of culls is ongoing, and the number of whitetail B-licenses issued was increased. 

A high concentration of deer means a higher risk of disease transmission. There are steps Whitefish residents can take to help minimize the concentration of deer. 

“Deer feeding is a constant concern of ours,” Lula said. “It artificially concentrates animals into one single place, with shared food and water resources, where bodily fluids can be easily and commonly transferred.” 

Neil Anderson, Fish, Wildlife and Parks regional wildlife biologist, said it is against state law to provide artificial attractants.  

Reducing attractants, like fruit in trees and on the ground, and highly palatable shrubs is also helpful. The state wildlife agency recommends the city remove fruit trees to reduce attractants. 

“The other thing, though, is we know folks feed the deer. Part of it is trying to make town less attractive,” said Lula. “There are a lot of reasons deer want to be in the middle of town especially when they have a readily available food source. They have no worries, aside from getting clipped by a car.” 

One of the most effective tools is reporting neighbors who are actively feeding deer. It’s not about issuing citations, it’s about providing education. 

“Prevention is better than reaction,” Lula said, adding that in Libby, Fish, Wildlife and Parks had to react. “So far, Whitefish does not have any positive detections here.” 

Lula said the city needs to decide what its desire is for whitetail in town. 

“Whitefish is a big disease transmission risk just because of the density and congregation of animals in town,” Game Warden Tyler Melville said. “It took Libby a long time to get to the point where they said, yes, we need to reduce the number of deer.” 

Tyler said the Libby surveillance area had a 13% prevalence of the disease and now it is down to about 8%. Outside the area, it is 5-6%. 

“Managing deer in an urban situation can be very costly,” Tyler said. “There’s a state statute that suggests that municipalities may develop a plan and if it calls for reducing deer densities it has to be approved by the Fish and Wildlife Commission.” 

The commission is a citizen’s board that is responsible for managing wildlife regulations. They are involved when municipalities want to implement an urban wildlife management plan.  

The presentation ended with more questions: How many deer is the right number? Do we choose to reduce the population and if so, how? Do we save the meat and if so, how? 

Lula warned against putting too much value on the number of deer in town. He said there is variability around any population estimate and that, ultimately, the decision to manage deer is subjective.