# No sign of CWD



## Munsterlndr

Further testing has yet to show any signs of CWD. 

http://www.mlive.com/outdoors/index.ssf/2009/10/kent_county_deer_testing_all_c.html


----------



## Steve

That's great to hear Munster. Lots of testing yet to go....


----------



## Munsterlndr

It's disappointing that they feel that the threat has been reduced enough to relax any special quota's to increase the number of test animals in the sample from the 9 county "CWD zone", yet still keep the ban in place in counties that are hundreds of miles away from the index facility, where there is virtually zero chance of the Kent Co. captive deer having contacted free ranging animals. Common sense seems to be lacking from this plan. 

It would have made much more sense to keep aggressive harvest quota's in place in the area surrounding Kent Co., both increasing the chances of finding a positive deer and also prophylacticaly reducing the deer densities in the area's that were potentially exposed to CWD. Sure seems like it would have been a better way to go about it if determining whether or not CWD made it into the free ranging herd was the top priority.


----------



## Steve

I'm not sure anybody is convinced that the CWD deer that were traded between game farms were isolated to the index facility.


----------



## Munsterlndr

The investigation determined that the index facility had transferred deer to I think 9 other facilities. I believe that the herds at all nine of those facilities were depopulated and tested and no CWD positive deer were found at any of them. Nor did any testing from the counties that those 9 facilities were located in show any CWD positive deer. 

Even if you wanted to be super cautious and err on the side of being conservative, after two years of negative testing, you could still keep the ban in place in area 452, Kent Co. and in each of the 9 counties that the transfer facilities were in. This would still leave the vast majority, something like 59, of lower Peninsula Counties as eligible for a rescission of the ban. At this point in time CWD is much, much more likely to result in Michigan from an illegally imported carcass brought back from a hunting trip from a CWD positive state then from any baiting that would occur in those 59 LP counties. Yet we still allow hunters to bring back meat from CWD pos. states and we allow captive cervid operations to continue to exist with shoddy or non-existent record keeping. Sometimes the logic of it all boggles the mind.


----------



## Liver and Onions

Steve said:


> I'm not sure anybody is convinced that the CWD deer that were traded between game farms were isolated to the index facility.


Please provide a link to the investigation that indicates any CWD deer were traded in Mich. I sure did miss that info.

L & O


----------



## kristie

Information from investigations aren't usually published in press....just an FYI......
Kristie


----------



## Munsterlndr

Dr. Schmitt showed a map with the facilities that were confirmed to have traded with the index facility, in the video of his CWD presentation that is in another thread and mentioned that no CWD was found at those other facilities. As far as information about other CWD positive deer being traded among captive cervid facilities in Michigan, I'd be pretty skeptical if that information was known by the DNR and not released or leaked in some form to the press. Like the old Chinese adage, trying to keep something like that secret is like wrapping fire with paper. 

I don't believe there are any ongoing investigations at this time with either the index facility or any of the facilities that traded deer with the index facility, are there Kristie?


----------



## Michihunter

Munsterlndr said:


> Dr. Schmitt showed a map with the facilities that were confirmed to have traded with the index facility, in the video of his CWD presentation that is in another thread and mentioned that no CWD was found at those other facilities. As far as information about other CWD positive deer being traded among captive cervid facilities in Michigan, I'd be pretty skeptical if that information was known by the DNR and not released or leaked in some form to the press. Like the old Chinese adage, trying to keep something like that secret is like wrapping fire with paper.
> 
> I don't believe there are any ongoing investigations at this time with either the index facility or any of the facilities that traded deer with the index facility, are there Kristie?


I know you and I were both present when they gave the CWD report at the Feb(?) NRC meeting. I was astounded by the lack of enforcement and investigations involving with these facilities as were most everyone in the audience. Simply amazing what was said on that day without a blink of an eyelash from those placed in charge of that procedure.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Michihunter said:


> I know you and I were both present when they gave the CWD report at the Feb(?) NRC meeting. I was astounded by the lack of enforcement and investigations involving with these facilities as were most everyone in the audience. Simply amazing what was said on that day without a blink of an eyelash from those placed in charge of that procedure.


No eye blinking from those in charge but there sure was a lot of squirming and orifice puckering among the commissioners who had to sit there and listen to the description of the enforcement debacle.


----------



## ridgewalker

Thank you for posting this interesting information. I do not find it surprising in the least, just another example of the politics made out of a single unrelated event.


----------



## HeavyF150

I can honestly say this has been the best CWD thread I've read in a while. Straightforward infomation, without all the BS.
Keep up the information flow folks.


----------



## markbarth

No eye blinking from those in charge but there sure was a lot of squirming and orifice puckering among the commissioners who had to sit there and listen to the description of the enforcement debacle. 


Munster and Mich,

I was at this meeting also and munst you hit it dead on!
It was at this point that Keith Charters threw up his arms and said
(verbatum)"whether we banned baiting for ethics or what ever reason"

The commisioners were embarrassed to find out that only 37% of all CC's were up to code
5 years after the initial DNR audit.


----------



## kristie

At this point I don't know.
K


----------



## 6inchtrack

This has always been about ethics anyway. If there is really a concern of disease in Kent County, then keep a limited ban in that area. I wish that the commissioners would step up and lift the ban in the rest of the state and make these wildlife guys put up or shut up.


.


----------



## MuskyDan

If there had been a tax on bait like there is on say doe urine, do you think we'd still be having this conversation?


----------



## e. fairbanks

When our DNR stumbled onto the fact that there was a taxidermy operation connected to the cc farm that had recieved entire deer heads from states where CWD IS FOUND IN THE WILD the investigation concerning the introduction of the infection was closed.


----------



## markbarth

musky,fairbanks, 6 inch

talked to a SGT CO today,
he stated that the the dnr knows that baiting did not bring CWD into the state, but, as always,"THE BUT", that decision makers in lansing, "that have no shirts on in the field", make the decisions based more on a political basis than a scientifical management decision.

He also emphasised the impact that farm bureau has on the NRC

Finally, a state employee that sees it the way it really is and did not sugar coat anything
How refreshing!

He also stated that baiting and food plots are the same, as they both serve as vectors as a potential to spread diseases, if diseases are present and that it ostracisizes the public land hunter who does not have the benefit of food plots and cannot bait or put food plots on state land.




,


----------



## Michigander1

I really thing its all about Animal Byproducts. Mother Nature has Her ways.We feed them as we feed ourselfs.We feed cattle with byproducts that they are not meant to eat.thttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_product .


----------



## fairfax1

Different floor, same dance.

Let's get over this 'ethics' charge on the bait ban. There is no language in the directives that says you are ethically challenged if you bait. What it says is it is against the law to do it. If you think it is ethical to be law-abiding and not ethical to be a law breaker ....well, then....color it as you see it.
Don't fear the finger-wagger....fear the law.

...............

These statements about limiting the ban to Kent county all conveniently sidestep the concept that this disease has a long incubation period frequently without overt symptoms. In other words, it can be out there within the fenced-in herds or within the free range herds. We just haven't found it yet.

And for those of you who tag any or all of the State's agencies as grossly incompetent in their monitoring of this disease........well, there is a recripocal to that thought: Maybe you could consider that this 'incompetency' has MISSED the disease that is actually present. Meaning.......it's there but they are too dumb to find it...so far. 
So give incompetency its' due: That brush can tar either baby.
..................

But, let's whittle this down to the bone: 

*FOR THE BAN: * The ban was a prophylactic to prevent the possible expansion of this disease. Bait piles...especially as practiced in Michigan...are 4'x4' 200lb petri dishes ripe with the potential of transmitting any one of several cervid diseases. 

Outlaw 'em ....as a way to reduce the risk of transmission. In short, a desire to keep our herd healthy for now and the future stokes the ProBan fire. 

*FOR BAIT:* Want bait piles to continue because of two reasons: First, there is a financial incentive to keep baiting alive...they make money off of the practice; growing it; delivering it; selling it. 
Two, the convenience and predictability of harvesting deer off of bait is attractive to a certain segement of the hunting population. 

In short, money and comfort for the pro-bait segement stokes their fire.


----------



## LakeCityMi

I will admit i did not read the entire thread, but i believe the USDA did most of the Investigating, and the DNR went on the basis of that?

Also the DNR had an Action plan in case a positive CWD animal was found in michigan that they were going to do the things that they did, but its my guess that they never thought of a captive deer would contract the disease. Therefore since this action is all they had they went full steam ahead, no baiting!


----------



## Munsterlndr

fairfax1 said:


> These statements about limiting the ban to Kent county all conveniently sidestep the concept that this disease has a long incubation period frequently without overt symptoms. In other words, it can be out there within the fenced-in herds or within the free range herds. We just haven't found it yet.


Regardless of how long the "incubation" period is, any deer that might have come into contact with the Kent Co. deer are in all likelihood still going to be in Kent Co. Incubation is not really the correct term. CWD is detectable in deer through testing long before any clinical signs appear. Just because a deer tests positive for CWD does not mean that it will be likely to spread it. Prions are not living organisms, they accumulate in the tissues and bodily fluids of an affected deer and are shed either through saliva and/or feces and urine. A week after being exposed to prions, a deer will not have accumulated enough prions to be able to shed them and transmit them to other deer, it's not like a virus. 

A this point there has been sufficient testing to reach a 95% confidence level that CWD is not in the free ranging herd. By next spring, if no further cases show up, we will be at a 99%+ confidence level. 

It is statistically impossible to reach a 100% confidence level without testing every deer in the Michigan herd. We will have as high confidence level that the herd is CWD free as we do that the human population in Michigan is not infected with EBOLA virus and that's a potential that I would submit nobody is losing sleep speculating about.. A little common sense would go a long way here, instead of relying on hysterical speculation that there might be one or two deer with CWD out there. 

If there is, it's largely a moot point anyway. Once it gets into the free ranging herd, it's highly unlikely that you would ever be able to eradicate it, regardless of the measure that you take. All you can hope to do is contain it and the absolute best means of doing that is massive population reduction in the affected area. 

Still ranting about the moneychangers in the temple, I see. The audacity of trying to earn a living, I tell you, those guys have some nerve! :lol:


----------



## Michihunter

Fairfax- You forgot one of the Pro baiter bulllet points- Successful method of hunting deer(to the tune of 44% success rate).

In 1993 Minnis and Peyton reported that 56% of all hunters baited. In 1994 the numbers were divied up this way:
Firearms Baiters-53%
Archery Baiters- 71%.

In 1999 it was reported that there was a 44% success rate for those who use bait.

I'm assuming you'd agree that heavy deer populations are the number one cause for disease and disease transmission risks. Yet here we are outlawing a method used by well over 50% of the hunters out there who had a 44% success rate using that method? And this makes sense to you? 

Most estimates indicate there are 1.8+ million deer residing in the State of MI. More than half are concentrated in the southern half of the Southern Peninsula where the majority of hunting also takes place. With a 44% success rate being reported by those in the know, we're going to throw it to the wolves in order to ban a practice that has very little chance of making a difference in risk level in an area that's overwhelmingly agricultural and where deer are congregating en masse? Does removing a very successful means to reduce the NUMBER 1 risk for disease transmission(over population) truly make sense to you when in the end the risk still remains as prevalent due to the agricultural nature of the region?


----------



## jacktownhooker

very good post !!
i find it ironic that the PROFESSIONAL DEER SNIPERS can use every illegal method to eradictate deer ... and get paid !
while the majority of hunters are lucky to get 1 deer hunting 2-5 acres or public land 
and limiting advantages !

heres an idea .... lets boycot the deer hunting season 
let the sales lag and deer multiply !!

plenty of fish to catch and the dnr will restock and they allow all advantages to harvest fish !
meanwhile all the cities can continue to pay PROFESSIONALS to hunt at night and over bait and car insurance can continue to go up over deer- car crashes !


----------



## Tom Morang

Michihunter said:


> Fairfax- You forgot one of the Pro baiter bulllet points- Successful method of hunting deer(to the tune of 44% success rate).
> 
> In 1993 Minnis and Peyton reported that 56% of all hunters baited. In 1994 the numbers were divied up this way:
> Firearms Baiters-53%
> Archery Baiters- 71%.
> 
> In 1999 it was reported that there was a 44% success rate for those who use bait.
> 
> I'm assuming you'd agree that heavy deer populations are the number one cause for disease and disease transmission risks. Yet here we are outlawing a method used by well over 50% of the hunters out there who had a 44% success rate using that method? And this makes sense to you?
> 
> Most estimates indicate there are 1.8+ million deer residing in the State of MI. More than half are concentrated in the southern half of the Southern Peninsula where the majority of hunting also takes place. With a 44% success rate being reported by those in the know, we're going to throw it to the wolves in order to ban a practice that has very little chance of making a difference in risk level in an area that's overwhelmingly agricultural and where deer are congregating en masse? Does removing a very successful means to reduce the NUMBER 1 risk for disease transmission(over population) truly make sense to you when in the end the risk still remains as prevalent due to the agricultural nature of the region?



And in the same report it stated those that don't bait have a 52% success rate............AND you assume that those who can't bait will not hunt?

INFLUENCE OF BAITING ON HUNTER SUCCESS
While a majority of respondents who used bait felt the use of bait increased their chance of harvesting a deer,
most studies show baiting to be only slightly more effective in harvesting deer. A 1999 phone survey
conducted by the DNR reported that in Deer Management Unit (DMU) 452, 44 percent were successful
using bait, while 52 percent were successful without bait. Winterstein (1992) reported that hunters using bait
were 20 percent more effective in harvesting deer (3.8 deer harvested per 100 days of hunting) than those
who did not use bait (3.1 deer per 100 days of hunting). In the 1984 survey (Langenau et al. 1985), hunters
who used bait were no more effective in harvesting deer (2.4 deer per 100 hunter days) than those who did
not use bait (2.2 deer per 100 hunter days). A 1993 Wisconsin survey found that hunting with bait does not
increase a hunter&#8217;s success rate compared to those that did not use bait. In the survey, exactly one-half of
the hunters who used bait during their 1992 gun hunts bagged a deer while 54 percent of the hunters who did
not use bait bagged a deer (Wisconsin Bureau of Wildlife Management 1993). These findings are not
consistent over all geographic areas, however. A Texas study reported higher success rates, reduced kill
distances, more deer observed, and less time required to harvest a deer when hunting over bait (Synatzske
1981). These results should be interpreted with caution because they are not consistent with results of
surveys conducted in the north, and they may not be applicable in Michigan.


----------



## Michihunter

Tom Morang said:


> And in the same report it stated those that don't bait have a 52% success rate............AND you assume that those who can't bait will not hunt?
> 
> INFLUENCE OF BAITING ON HUNTER SUCCESS
> While a majority of respondents who used bait felt the use of bait increased their chance of harvesting a deer,
> most studies show baiting to be only slightly more effective in harvesting deer. A 1999 phone survey
> conducted by the DNR reported that in Deer Management Unit (DMU) 452, 44 percent were successful
> using bait, while 52 percent were successful without bait. Winterstein (1992) reported that hunters using bait
> were 20 percent more effective in harvesting deer (3.8 deer harvested per 100 days of hunting) than those
> who did not use bait (3.1 deer per 100 days of hunting). In the 1984 survey (Langenau et al. 1985), hunters
> who used bait were no more effective in harvesting deer (2.4 deer per 100 hunter days) than those who did
> not use bait (2.2 deer per 100 hunter days). A 1993 Wisconsin survey found that hunting with bait does not
> increase a hunter&#8217;s success rate compared to those that did not use bait. In the survey, exactly one-half of
> the hunters who used bait during their 1992 gun hunts bagged a deer while 54 percent of the hunters who did
> not use bait bagged a deer (Wisconsin Bureau of Wildlife Management 1993). These findings are not
> consistent over all geographic areas, however. A Texas study reported higher success rates, reduced kill
> distances, more deer observed, and less time required to harvest a deer when hunting over bait (Synatzske
> 1981). These results should be interpreted with caution because they are not consistent with results of
> surveys conducted in the north, and they may not be applicable in Michigan.


Tom- I'm not 'assuming' nothing. I guess you didn't notice that it's been said repeatedly by quite a few on here that those who use bait know no other way to hunt.:evilsmile

The bottom line is this, baiting IS an effective tool to use in killing deer. And killing deer SHOULD be our #1 goal. Removing an effective means of doing so is pointless WHEN the truth of the matter is that the baiting ban is an insignificant way to reduce the risk level of disease transmission in an area that is abundantly agricultural AND has an over abundance of deer.


----------



## Tom Morang

Michihunter said:


> Tom- I'm not 'assuming' nothing. I guess you didn't notice that it's been said repeatedly by quite a few on here that those who use bait know no other way to hunt.:evilsmile
> 
> The bottom line is this, baiting IS an effective tool to use in killing deer. And killing deer SHOULD be our #1 goal. Removing an effective means of doing so is pointless WHEN the truth of the matter is that the baiting ban is an insignificant way to reduce the risk level of disease transmaission in an area that is abundantly agricultural in nature AND has an over abundance of deer.




You don't assume?:lol:


----------



## Michihunter

Tom Morang said:


> You don't assume?:lol:





Tom Morang said:


> AND you assume that those who can't bait will not hunt?


Sorry Tom but once again you are out in left field with your own "assumptions". No where did I say that people would not hunt. What I DID say was that an effective tool to reduce the population levels was removed for reasons that make no difference to the risk level in general to that area. 


I will grant you this in regard to your last post- I'm going to have to 'assume' you found it funny.


----------



## Tom Morang

Ted, you do make me laugh.

I would honestly like to believe you, but I just have to side with the scientists and biologists on this issue. Sorry


----------



## Michihunter

Tom Morang said:


> Ted, you do make me laugh.
> 
> I would honestly like to believe you, but I just have to side with the scientists and biologists on this issue. Sorry


You mean the ones that say overpopulation is the greatest risk? I'll have to agree with you then Tom. Lets listen(really listen) to what those biologists are saying.


----------



## Tom Morang

Michihunter said:


> You mean the ones that say overpopulation is the greatest risk? I'll have to agree with you then Tom. Lets listen(really listen) to what those biologists are saying.



The ones that say baiting is also a high risk.

We can kill deer without bait, that is a fact.

Baiting and feeding does help spread diseases. 

If we kill more deer without using bait we will satisfy both camps. We can, we just have to want to.


----------



## Michihunter

Tom Morang said:


> The ones that say baiting is also a high risk.
> 
> We can kill deer without bait, that is a fact.
> 
> Baiting and feeding does help spread diseases.
> 
> If we kill more deer without using bait we will satisfy both camps. We can, we just have to want to.


They say that the congregation of deer is the risk Tom. Baiting is only said to promote the congregation of deer much in the same way ag lands do. Ag lands make up the majority of the SLP so it's a meaningless venture in the end that costs the state upwards of $50 million dollars in economic benefits without any true benefit of lowering the risk level. You need to look for the forest Tom instead of being blinded by the trees.

BTW-We had more hunters last year and the same amount of deer killed. Bowhunters, the sector that uses bait the most(71%), had a 16% reduction in kills. Coincidence?


----------



## Tom Morang

We can stop baiting. 

We can not stop farmers from growing food.


----------



## Michihunter

Tom Morang said:


> We can stop baiting.
> 
> We can not stop farmers from growing food.


In the end, the latter makes the former meaningless.


----------



## Tom Morang

You can argue all you want. Won't change a thing.


----------



## fairfax1

Michihunter raises an insight that has only briefly been referenced since the end of last year. Namely, that despite the outlawing of baiting, and presumably the dramatic (tho not total elimination) of the incidence and quantity of baiting.....Michigan hunters, nonetheless, turned out in high numbers. In fact, higher than the year before when baiting was not illegal.

That was reassuring as not a few in the pro-bait camp direly predicted the abandonment of deer hunting by a not small segment of Michigan hunters AND an explosion in the deer population due to the non-harvesting of animals that those 'missing' hunters would have taken. 

Well, that _'end-of-the-world'_ scenario....turned out to be a non-event. Hunters want to hunt. And they will do so despite restrictions on formerly much relied-upon tactics. Witness the elimination of baiting for ducks and geese didn't end duck hunting; the outlawing of of salmon snagging didn't end salmon fishing. 

The traditions of Michigan deer hunting will survive without the baiting practices that became faddish just within the last 20yrs. And, Michigan hunters will continue kill deer....just as they did prior to the advent of widespread baiting. 

To be sure, I agree with Michi that baiting IS effective. I have no doubt about it. But its' elimination does not pose a threat to a high kill. We white guys with guns have a long history of reducing....even eliminating.... wildlife. So the elimination of one recently popular tactic still leaves in place many other human responses to wildlife control: better weapons; longer seasons; more targetted seasons; etc.

Baiting is a tactic that is now outlawed (LP, of course). Hunters will adapt. They killed deer before baiting....they'll kill 'em after.


----------



## Munsterlndr

fairfax1 said:


> Michigan hunters, nonetheless, turned out in high numbers. In fact, higher than the year before when baiting was not illegal.


You may be reassured if you look only at the overall net harvest figures. If you look at the individual seasons, the numbers are a little more disconcerting.

Archery season - Hunter participation down -4.9%
Harvest down -11.9%

Muzzleloader season - Participation down -5.1%
Harvest down -3.3%

Youth season - Participation down -7.3%
 Harvest down -13.1%

Reg. Firearms season - Participation up +3.6%
Harvest up + 20.5%


Actual overall participation increased only a nominal amount, the only reasons that there was not a significant net reduction in actual harvest totals was due to two primary reasons, one was the introduction of an early antlerless season in September and the other was a large increase in the antlerless license quota's in the NLP, particularly in Kent Co. That's why the NLP firearms harvest increased by 48.2% even though hunter participation in the NLP only increased by 6.8%

We'll see after this year what the ongoing impact of the baiting restrictions has (if any) on both overall hunter numbers and harvest numbers. Looking at one years results, especially since the ban was announced so close to the season after many hunters had already purchased licenses is not much data to go on. In another year or two, (assuming that the ban stays in place) we will be in a better position to identify the potential impact of the regulation. 

Tell me, if the ban caused a decrease in participation in archery, muzzleloading & youth seasons and caused more hunters to opt only to participate in firearms season, would that be considered a positive change?


----------



## Michihunter

Munster- Those numbers you posted only reflect the antlerless harvest numbers. They're much more disconcerting when you use combined sex harvest amounts. 
Archery was down nearly -16%
Youth was down -21%
ML down -6.4% 
Firearms up only +7%


----------



## Munsterlndr

Michihunter said:


> Munster- Those numbers you posted only reflect the antlerless harvest numbers. They're much more disconcerting when you use combined sex harvest amounts.
> Archery was down nearly -16%
> Youth was down -21%
> ML down -6.4%
> Firearms up only +7%


Your absolutely right, Ted. My mistake.


----------



## Bob S

> Tell me, if the ban caused a decrease in participation in archery, muzzleloading & youth seasons


Baiting was never legal for the Youth Season. So how can you attribute the decline in youth hunters to the baiting ban?

Also, since the majority of hunters are in zone 3, where center fire rifles are not legal, how does the bait ban cause the muzzleloader hunter numbers to decline? Many of those hunters are using the same muzzleloader in December as they are in November.


----------

