# could this be the CWD/food plot link



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

*Veterinary Scientist Identifies Nutritional Basis for Wasting Disease in Cattle*



*New Research Supports Environmental Factors as a Causal Agent in Wasting Diseases* 
*(pdf file 234 kb) *


* these links are from the wisc cwd watch website*

http://www.caids-wi.org/
​


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Dunno. The Google links in green off to the right side of the page sponsoring food plots and fruit tree's may beg to differ.


----------



## e. fairbanks (Dec 6, 2007)

Type that in and click search -The only human disease that has been eradicated is smallpox. The only animal disease that has been eradicated is rinderpest, which wiped out millions of cattle and wild African ruminants. The effective vaccine for these diseases is what did the trick. We have no effective vaccine for TB OR CWD.
We live in a society of "make believe"


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Mr. Fairbanks,

I don't think anyone here believes any disease will be wiped out. Be it TB, CWD, blue tongue or whatever. Or in humans, AIDS, influuenza, etc. Controlling to minimum levels is the hope of everyone I've talked to.

Isn't the concern very large herds where any disease can spread faster? If we got down to 15-20 deer per mile, baiting may be just fine. Isn't the concern having baiting in huge bloated herds with 50-70 deer per mile? Having 50-70 deer is terrible enough, but jamming them even closer onto a pile (and most guys bent the rule and put out a "pile", not 2 gallons) doesn't seem to be the best idea, especially when baiting is not only not needed to kill deer, it may make it more difficult to kill more antlerless deer.

If Michigan deer hunters do a better job of killing far more antlerless deer in the LP, they may be able to get their baiting back. But they never will with LP herd numbers where they are now.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> Isn't the concern very large herds where any disease can spread faster? If we got down to 15-20 deer per mile, baiting may be just fine. Isn't the concern having baiting in huge bloated herds with 50-70 deer per mile? Having 50-70 deer is terrible enough, but jamming them even closer onto a pile doesn't seem to be the best idea.


Then by the same token, it seems that jamming deer close together in food plots in areas where deer densities are over stated goals or planting food plots that sustain increased densities is also probably not the best idea.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

> If Michigan deer hunters do a better job of killing far more antlerless deer in the LP, they may be able to get their baiting back. But they never will with LP herd numbers where they are now.


 
Pine ol buddy, we used to help by taking 2 or 3 every year (5 one year), but we always used bait, sorry, but last year we struck out and didn't help at all.
[/COLOR]


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Did anyone actually read the data.


----------



## twodogsphil (Apr 16, 2002)

Based on various studies the author speculates that CWD is caused by a mineral deficiency, So we need more mineral licks???????????


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

How come you struck out? Didn't you adjust tactics? You can't sit in the same place you used to bait and expect deer to run to you. Without bait you need to move to where the deer travel and then wait for them to move naturally.


----------



## traditional (Mar 14, 2007)

swampbuck said:


> Did anyone actually read the data.


Some of us have. Some of us will turn any conversation to the evil of baiting.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Or the same old slide show of the evils of fields.


----------



## cadillacjethro (Mar 21, 2007)

Pinefarm said:


> Or the same old slide show of the evils of fields.


A picture is worth a thousand words.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Is a picture from a layman worth 1000 hours of disease research by a PhD in wildlife biology? How about a team of the most knowledgeable wildlife PhD's in the nation?

On a side note, is the pic of the flock of big bucks from an enclosure?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> Is a picture from a layman worth 1000 hours of disease research by a PhD in wildlife biology? How about a team of the most knowledgeable wildlife PhD's in the nation?
> 
> On a side note, is the pic of the flock of big bucks from an enclosure?


Seeing as how none of those biologists have conducted any scientific studies regarding the potential for food plots acting as vectors for disease, I'd say that the anecdotal evidence provided by pictures is probably more compelling. 

As far as your claim of a team of the most knowledgeable Wildlife biology PHd's in the nation, exactly who are you talking about?

The overwhelming majority of those in charge of and involved in the TB/CWD issue in Michigan are not Phd's in Wildlife Biology nor do they have much of a background in dealing with whitetailed deer. The bulk of them are DVM's with a few DNR field staff that have a masters in Biology thrown in. Brent Rudolph is about the only Wildlife Biology Phd that has an extensive background in whitetail biology that is involved in the TB/CWD eradication program. The two individuals that are in charge of the program are both veterinarians, Schmitt and Halstead. Mike Miller, the CWD expert in Colorado is also a DVM, so I'm not sure who this "World class team of Phd biologists your talking about is. 

Oh, and the pic of the bucks was taken on my property in Lake Co., just a typical evening pic from the food plot......






(Just kidding, you will have to ask the whitetail institute where the pic was taken, it's from their website, promoting their seed products.)


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Munster,

In the many links I've provided for you in the last year, there's one where MDNR deer biologists did extensive research in the 1990's in the NELP, in daylight and after dark, watching deer under all circumstances, on bait, in fields, native browse, and they watched with binocs and a counter clicker. They clicked each time there was contact.
The findings were, native browse and fields had roughly the same amount of contact on the low end of the scale and bait had lots of contact.

I'm not going to look for it yet again. I've posted it enough and you obviously do not care because of your agenda. 
And these are deer/wildlife biologists watching deer in controlled settings, not from the coffee table looking at a bird feeder. 

Don't take this the wrong way, but you lie as openly as Obama saying that the AARP backs his healthcare plan. Openly telling the same lie seems to almost come natural. You've been provided proof before and you openly choose to ignore it. 

Your ridiculous fantasy that your couple pictures makes you an expert does this site, and hunters a great dis-service. There's a lot of arm chair wanna-be disease experts on this site spreading rumors, myths and mis-information, but you are their leader. 

Instead of taking the time to search for more pictures to post, why don't you call some of the experts you mention and ask them once and for all if a 2 acre field offers the same threat as a bait pile?

Ah, but you refuse. You refuse because you know the answer. And that answer will diminish your fantasy here that somehow you're leading some opposition. 

All you do is create a divide between hunters. PETA couldn't do what you've done since baiting was banned. 

Your corrosive crusade to bring bait back has to stop. You're endless pre-occupation with bait pits hunter against hunter more than anyone on these boards. 

The experts decided years back that this was the plan when CWD was found. Everyone knew, or should have known it was coming. Baiting is banned according to the plan set forth by the experts paid to make those plans, get over it and learn to live without it. 

When you start making an income in wildlife research, then you can post more pics of deer eating, with your theory backed up by research and numbers.

I'm done with this whole forum for good now. I'll move the baiting threads here for the anti-ban folks to feed on and you can consider this your own private forum to bash MDNR and present other theories like GW Bush planned 9-11.

There's 1,500,000 deer in this state. You guys can't be that lost without bait that you can't even kill a few antlerless deer without bait? And for many, banning bait brought about more deer seen. Geez.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Gee Bob, calling me a liar is pretty strong stuff, especially coming from a moderator. Please point out where I have lied. The majority of stuff that I post is backed up by peer reviewed research and I've posted the citations for those studies plenty of times. When I post opinion, I'm pretty careful to state that it's an opinion based on anecdotal observations. As far as pictures, they pretty much speak for themselves. Do you honestly think the pictures are staged? They reflect normal whitetail feeding behavior. 

I provide evidence and let others draw their own conclusions. Once again, if you think that evidence is a lie, post some contradictory evidence that is supported by more than hyperbole like your statement about a team of "the most knowledgeable wildlife Phd's in the nation"

Face it Bob, you hate baiting because it doesn't fit into the ethical mindset that you have decided is appropriate and that you want to impose on everybody else. You would ignore legitimate evidence if it bit you in the foot as long as it contradicts your point of view. Your entitled to your viewpoint, just like everyone else is entitled to theirs. Your constant ridicule and derision of others peoples point of view regarding baiting is wearing a little thin and is only marginally appropriate for a moderator in these forums. It's kind of funny that you and others seem so threatened by discussions on this topic that you have done everything you can to limit discussion, by relegating it to one of the least read forums, short of banning the topic. 

You want to question my credibility? Go ahead. I'll let the body of my postings in these forums stand for themself. Others can judge whether or not my posts are credible, just as they can judge whether yours are. I'm not on any sort of a crusade, no vested interest and nothing to gain, I'm just a guy engaging in stimulating intellectual exchanges on an internet hunting forum. Sometimes I think you need to take these discussions a little less seriously and get a grip.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

Geez Pine

Take a pill already.

Sorry dude, I forgot, babies on the way...

Baby Blues maybe???
I got a little stressed a couple of times like that myself.


----------



## cadillacjethro (Mar 21, 2007)

Post #15 is the most pitiful, childish post I've seen in quite a while. Truly shameful.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Yes it is.


----------



## Falk (Jan 18, 2005)

Pinefarm said:


> Munster,
> 
> In the many links I've provided for you in the last year, there's one where MDNR deer biologists did extensive research in the 1990's in the NELP, in daylight and after dark, watching deer under all circumstances, on bait, in fields, native browse, and they watched with binocs and a counter clicker. They clicked each time there was contact.
> The findings were, native browse and fields had roughly the same amount of contact on the low end of the scale and bait had lots of contact.
> ...


Excellent post Pinefarm. Thank you for telling it like it is.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Let's for a moment assume Pinefarms post is completely and 100% accurate. His claim is that bait pile provide a higher risk for disease transmission than food plots. Welll I'm afraid that's like saying you have a greater risk of catching cancer from Full flavor cigarettes as opposed to smoking Light cigarettes. Either way you are at risk and anyone that can't understand that has their own agenda they're trying to push.

As for someone being obsessed with the baiting issue, I hate to say this PF and I hope you don't take offense because I truly do respect you, but you are plainly OCD when it comes to it. Not a chance goes by without you bringing it up even in the most baiting benign threads. If anyone is keeping this issue at the forefront, I'm afraid it's you.


----------



## Falk (Jan 18, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> Let's for a moment assume Pinefarms post is completely and 100% accurate. His claim is that bait pile provide a higher risk for disease transmission than food plots. Welll I'm afraid that's like saying you have a greater risk of catching cancer from Full flavor cigarettes as opposed to smoking Light cigarettes. Either way you are at risk and anyone that can't understand that has their own agenda they're trying to push.
> 
> As for someone being obsessed with the baiting issue, I hate to say this PF and I hope you don't take offense because I truly do respect you, but you are plainly OCD when it comes to it. Not a chance goes by without you bringing it up even in the most baiting benign threads. If anyone is keeping this issue at the forefront, I'm afraid it's you.


I am glad Pinefarm keeps this issue at the forefront. It's a good way to remind these people that it is Against The Law.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Pinefarm said:


> Munster,
> 
> In the many links I've provided for you in the last year, there's one where MDNR deer biologists did extensive research in the 1990's in the NELP, in daylight and after dark, watching deer under all circumstances, on bait, in fields, native browse, and they watched with binocs and a counter clicker. They clicked each time there was contact.
> The findings were, native browse and fields had roughly the same amount of contact on the low end of the scale and bait had lots of contact.
> ...



Childish is an understand. Remember, this post comes from the king of hypocrisy who was once the king of baiting and now that he has moved in a different direction he simply doesn't want other hunters stealing what he considers "his" deer fom his kill plots with bait. 

L & O


----------



## Falk (Jan 18, 2005)

Liver and Onions said:


> Childish is an understand. Remember, this post comes from the king of hypocrisy who was once the king of baiting and now that he has moved in a different direction he simply doesn't want other hunters stealing what he considers "his" deer fom his kill plots with bait.
> 
> L & O


The era of baiting for Deer is over. You just need to get over it. Instead of complaining about it why not plant a food plot. It is fun and best of all it is legal.


----------



## turkey track (Sep 18, 2008)

Falk said:


> The era of baiting for Deer is over. You just need to get over it. Instead of complaining about it why not plant a food plot. It is fun and best of all it is legal.


 
Unless of course you hunt public land, then you're just screwed.


----------



## onenationhere (Dec 18, 2008)

turkey track said:


> Unless of course you hunt public land, then you're just screwed.


 

That is exactly my biggest gripe about this whole mess.The majority of the people out there buying tags are stateland hunters,hunting marginal habitat.I think that some guys have been hunting private managed grounds for so long that they have forgotten that a large segment of the hunting population does not own property to hunt on.This is just one more small step towards alienating an already shrinking population of hunters.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Falk said:


> ......... why not plant a food plot. ..........


:lol::lol:Now that's funny, maybe I will put in another. Should I make it next to where our first foodplot was put in back in '66 ? With the possible exception of Ed Spin, I don't think anyone on this forum has spent as much time and money on foodplots as we have over the past 40+ years. We enjoy doing the work and putting in plots and we enjoy watching deer use those plots. The biggest reason that we do is for us and our hunting pleasure. I'm not going to say something stupid like, "they are for the health of the herd". Maybe guys in the NLP or the UP can say that and be telling the truth, but anyone from the SLP who says that is living in denial. 
The difference is, I don't care how other guys hunt. We need more hunters, not fewer. If hunting is enjoyable, more younger hunters will stay with the activity. And guess what, seeing deer is pretty much at the top of the list when it comes to making hunting enjoyable for the majority of hunters. 

L & O


----------



## 12970 (Apr 19, 2005)

When I started hunting back in the late 1970's there was a whole different plan and Antlerless Permits were few and far between in getting them but you did se a deer and that kept many interested in Deer Hunting, but these days the few deer that are seen is causing a loss of hunters. I know a few that would hunt and see nothing and year after year they decided that their money would be spent on other activities than hunting. And it seems to continue. I am not sure of the pan now but over the last 5 years with and without bait very few are being seen during legal hunting hours. I can only see that with the increase in antlerless permits the Mature Does have disappeared like the Bucks have. Another factor might be the early Youth hunt and now the Antlerless Hunts. Seems once they are shot at especially with firearms they all but become nocturnal. When I bought my property back in the early 1990's we had all kinds of deer Bucks Does and Fawns, today you may see a fawn or two. As the antlerless became the hot license the deer dropped off over about a 8 year period the deer number sighted during Spring Summer and Fall have dropped off the map. Over the last 3 years I have decided to cut back on my huntung time in the woods because of the few deer. Bait or not it all has an effect on what deer are being seen. Though I have small plots and Apple trees on my property the deer are there just nocturnal more than ever. I scouted for years and would see deer late summer and fall but now you don't see them. I can give the reasons why but they seem to know when hunting starts in September and travel a lot less during the day. I have a few Trailcameras set up and it seems that now they change their travel patterns around September 1st and fewer and fewer are seen or pictures being taken and more night pictures than anything. I thought maybe some were putting out bait early but only time will tell now that baiting is prohibited now.

Getting more young hunters to stay in the sport is going to be tough, when you sit with them and see nothing year after year makes it hard for them to stay interested. Taking a deer is a bonus but these days when I rarely see a deer and if I do it is a Fawn not worth the money when you pay the processing for half the meat... I have been passing on fawns now for 6 or 7 years now to try and let them grow some being buttons. And now with the states economy where it is I think a lot fewer hunters will be out spending money they don't have to spend... We will see at the end when they have the number of licenses sold, how many deer are checked at checkstations or reported in any surveys but it looks like a lot less will be out hunting. With so many in foreclosure with their homes and can't afford to keep paying their car loans hunting will be down the list of affordable activities... Looks to be a double edged sword the economy & baiting might have big effect on hunting this fall. Most here are die hard hunters but that number is not the majority of hunters out there.

Hope I am wrong...

Newaygo1


----------

