Minnesota · Public Health Surveillance

Minnesota CWD Risk by Deer Permit Area

Name: Minnesota CWD Risk by Deer Permit Area (2022–2024)
Creator: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources
License: https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/

CWD is fatal in every case — no treatment, no recovery, no cure. Once it enters a herd, infection rates compound over years. Sampling surveillance is how we know where it's spreading. All 133 Minnesota Deer Permit Areas, ranked by 2022–2024 MN DNR detection data.

Search by DPA or county, click the map, or scroll to the full risk table.

Data current as of May 4, 2026

Scoring model

Methodology

Risk bands reflect a 3-season rolling window (2022–2024) of Minnesota DNR CWD surveillance data, aggregated by Deer Permit Area. DPAs with fewer than 100 samples over the window are reported as insufficient sampling rather than estimated.

▶Full methodology

Aggregation

Samples and positives are summed over the 2022–2024 window by DPA. Group DPAs (where one surveillance record covers multiple permit areas) are decomposed — each DPA in the group inherits the group's total samples and positives. Where a DPA appears in both a single-DPA row and a group row, the single-DPA row wins. Statewide rows are excluded.

Sampling floor

DPAs with fewer than 100 cumulative samples over the window are classified as insufficient sampling rather than assigned a detection rate. The minimum sample count among surveilled DPAs in the current dataset is 369 — the floor does not bind any current result but is held as a defensive constraint.

Band thresholds

Insufficient sampling — fewer than 100 samples
No detection — ≥100 samples, 0 positives
Low — positive rate >0% and <0.3%
Elevated — positive rate 0.3% to <1.0%
High — positive rate ≥1.0%

Validation

Before publishing, we tested this model against five named DPAs whose risk band we expected based on independent surveillance knowledge. All five matched.

Data source: MN DNR CWD surveillance program

Interpretation

Understanding risk bands

What each band means

High (≥1.0%): At least 1 in 100 sampled deer tested positive over the 3-year window. CWD is established and detectable in this DPA.
Elevated (0.3–1.0%): CWD positives detected at a meaningful rate; sustained surveillance is indicated.
Low (<0.3%): Positive cases detected at a low rate.
No detection (≥100 samples, 0 positives): No positive cases over the window with sufficient sampling effort.
Insufficient sampling (<100 samples): Surveillance effort below our reporting floor; risk band cannot be assigned reliably.

MN DNR guidance

For testing requirements and management zone regulations, consult MN DNR directly:

CWD testing — free mail-in kits and results — submit a sample and check your test results
CWD management zones — zone boundaries, restrictions, and carcass transport rules

Source: Minnesota Department of Natural Resources CWD surveillance program. Data current as of May 4, 2026.

Loading

Preparing your outdoor adventure...

Minnesota · Public Health Surveillance

Minnesota CWD Risk by Deer Permit Area

Search by DPA or county, click the map, or scroll to the full risk table.

Data current as of May 4, 2026

⌕

Loading map…

Map notes

This map is for informational purposes only. Consult MN DNR for current regulations.

DPAs 342, 343, and 344 appear in MN DNR surveillance records but lack boundary geometry in our boundary file. They appear in the risk table below but not on the map.

DPA-to-county associations in the search index are advisory; refer to the map for authoritative DPA boundaries.

Data current as of May 4, 2026; updated as MN DNR publishes new surveillance totals.

Stay Informed

Get notified when CWD risk bands change in Minnesota.

We send alerts when the MN DNR publishes new surveillance totals — including when a DPA's band changes. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.

Free. No spam. Unsubscribe with one click.

Data table

All Deer Permit Areas

133 DPAs ranked by current risk band.

Sort by:

DPA 642

High risk

4,527 samples89 positives1.97% rate

Goodhue, Olmsted

DPA↕	Band↑	Samples (3yr)↕	Positives↕	Rate↕	Counties
642	High risk	4,527	89	1.97%	Goodhue, Olmsted
644	High risk	8,780	126	1.44%	Norman, Traverse
643	High risk	11,890	144	1.21%	Dodge, Fillmore
645	High risk	11,890	144	1.21%	Fillmore, Olmsted
646	High risk	11,890	144	1.21%	Fillmore, Houston
647	High risk	11,890	144	1.21%	Fillmore, Mower
648	High risk	11,890	144	1.21%	Fillmore, Olmsted
649	High risk	11,890	144	1.21%	Fillmore, Houston
655	High risk	11,890	144	1.21%	Dodge, Fillmore
661	Elevated risk	565	3	0.53%	Mahnomen, Pipestone
605	Elevated risk	2,569	9	0.35%	Carver, Dakota
343⚠	Low risk	653	1	0.15%	—
344⚠	Low risk	653	1	0.15%	—
255	Low risk	1,803	2	0.11%	Dodge, Mower
679	Low risk	2,269	2	0.09%	Aitkin, Cass
233	Low risk	1,150	1	0.09%	Dodge, Steele
293	Low risk	1,150	1	0.09%	Dodge, Goodhue
341	Low risk	1,150	1	0.09%	Dakota, Dodge
342⚠	Low risk	1,150	1	0.09%	—
110	Low risk	2,486	2	0.08%	Beltrami, Itasca
169	Low risk	2,486	2	0.08%	Beltrami, Itasca
197	Low risk	2,728	2	0.07%	Beltrami, Cass
101	No detection	621	0	0.00%	Beltrami, Lake of the Woods
156	No detection	870	0	0.00%	Aitkin, Carlton
157	No detection	1,728	0	0.00%	Aitkin, Kanabec
159	No detection	1,728	0	0.00%	Pennington
173	No detection	870	0	0.00%	Aitkin, Carlton
181	No detection	870	0	0.00%	Aitkin, Carlton
199	No detection	870	0	0.00%	Carlton, St. Louis
201	No detection	621	0	0.00%	Kittson, Roseau
213	No detection	369	0	0.00%	Douglas, Grant
225	No detection	1,728	0	0.00%	Chisago, Isanti
256	No detection	1,148	0	0.00%	Mahnomen, Otter Tail
257	No detection	1,148	0	0.00%	Otter Tail, Pipestone
259	No detection	1,016	0	0.00%	Cass, Hubbard
260	No detection	621	0	0.00%	Kittson, Marshall
262	No detection	1,148	0	0.00%	Clay, Norman
263	No detection	621	0	0.00%	Kittson, Roseau
265	No detection	1,148	0	0.00%	McLeod, Nobles
268	No detection	621	0	0.00%	Mahnomen, Rock
273	No detection	369	0	0.00%	Douglas, Grant
287	No detection	1,016	0	0.00%	Becker, Clearwater
604	No detection	2,993	0	0.00%	Aitkin, Cass
684	No detection	2,091	0	0.00%	Becker, Beltrami
104	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Beltrami, Itasca
105	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Koochiching, Lake of the Woods
107	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Koochiching, St. Louis
109	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Itasca, Koochiching
111	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Beltrami, Lake of the Woods
114	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Lake of the Woods
117	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Cook, Lake
118	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Lake, St. Louis
119	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Koochiching, St. Louis
126	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Cook, Lake
130	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Lake, St. Louis
131	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Cook, Lake
132	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Roseau
133	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Lake, St. Louis
152	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Kanabec, Mille Lacs
153	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Carlton, Pine
154	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Carlton, Pine
155	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Aitkin, Crow Wing
171	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Aitkin, Cass
172	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Cass, Crow Wing
176	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Itasca, St. Louis
177	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Itasca, Koochiching
178	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Itasca, St. Louis
182	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Carlton, St. Louis
203	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Mahnomen
208	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Beltrami, Marshall
209	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Beltrami, Clearwater
210	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Beltrami, Clearwater
214	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Mille Lacs, Swift
215	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Benton, Morrison
218	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Kandiyohi, Meeker
219	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Benton, Meeker
221	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Benton, Morrison
222	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Benton, Mille Lacs
223	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Benton, Mille Lacs
224	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Scott
227	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Anoka, Chisago
229	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Hennepin, Sherburne
230	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Blue Earth, Le Sueur
232	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Le Sueur, Rice
234	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Mower, Nicollet
235	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Anoka, Chisago
236	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Anoka, Chisago
237	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Jackson, Murray
238	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Cottonwood, Jackson
239	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Becker, Clay
240	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Olmsted, Swift
241	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Becker, Cass
246	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Cass, Hubbard
248	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Cass, Morrison
249	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Aitkin, Cass
250	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Cottonwood, Jackson
251	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Becker
252	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Cottonwood, Jackson
253	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Blue Earth, Faribault
254	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Dodge, Faribault
258	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Becker, Hubbard
264	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Kittson, Marshall
267	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Mahnomen, Rock
269	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Clay, Otter Tail
270	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Grant, Otter Tail
272	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Big Stone, Grant
274	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Big Stone, Traverse
275	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Big Stone, Chippewa
277	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Kandiyohi, Meeker
278	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Big Stone, Chippewa
279	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Lac qui Parle, Lincoln
280	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Lac qui Parle, Lincoln
281	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Chippewa, Lac qui Parle
282	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Chippewa, Kandiyohi
283	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Kandiyohi, McLeod
284	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Carver, McLeod
285	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Carver, McLeod
286	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Lincoln, Lyon
288	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Lincoln, Lyon
289	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Brown, Lyon
290	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Brown, Nicollet
291	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Blue Earth, Brown
292	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Blue Earth, Le Sueur
294	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Lincoln, Lyon
295	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Cottonwood, Lyon
296	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Brown, Cottonwood
297	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Becker, Mahnomen
298	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Becker, Clearwater
299	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Blue Earth, Brown
338	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Carver, Hennepin
601	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Anoka, Carver
666	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Becker, Clay
671	Insufficient sampling — not enough surveillance to assess	—	—	—	Big Stone, Grant