# CWD: putting to bed some inaccuracies from a closed thread



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Pinefarm said:


> It WILL likely take an act of the legislature to end the 2 buck limit. It's the legislature that created it!
> The only hope is that somehow MDNR/NRC can slip around the legislatures 2 buck laws by changing the wording on the laws that the legislature made for 2 buck tags being offered.
> It's the legislature that mandated an archery tag, a firearms tag and a combo tag MUST be offered.


No, not true. It's been debated on here many times but the NRC has the power to dictate what type of deer the combo license is good for. It would take an act of the legislature to get rid of the combo license but the NRC could put an OBR in place and change the combo license to one antlered/one antlerless tomorrow.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

And then you have one antlerless tag for every single UP firearms hunter and all public land firearms hunters. We don't need or want that. The issue with antlerless deer in mostly on private land in the LP, especially the SLP.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

Pinefarm said:


> I obviously don't know the exact numbers, but it would seem Michigan would need 5,000,000 deer plus to get the kind of saliva/feces contact we get with 1,500,000 combined with bait.


You obviously don't know, but that did not stop you from making an empty statement. If you don't know then why make the statement? Maybe to be sensationalistic?



Pinefarm said:


> Deer baiting in the LP is now over. It's over like market duck hunting or using live decoys for ducks.


To compare a 2 gallon limit with market duck hunting is a rediculous.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

Pinefarm said:


> Nothing creates opportuntity for close/saliva/feces contact like bait. No field or plot or apple orchard or fantastic oak stand comes close. If anyone wants to agrue that they offer anywhere close to the same opportunity for that contact, that's where our agreement ends.


That's because you always equate baiting to "truckloads" of bait. Instead of always using your anecdotal evidence of "I talk to 1000s in the NLP, and I know baiting is always over the 2 gallon limit" maybe you could come up with some other evidence for baiting laws being massively violated. Seems like a reasonable request to me.

Deer apparently are able to spread CWD via normal social interaction otherwise we would not see it endemically in the western states.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

Pinefarm said:


> , I believe that my neighbors baiting negatively impacted me personally.


You believe a lot, but you never seem to offer any evidence.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> 60-65% of K as the optimum is the heart and soul of the QDM philosophy. There have been a gazillion articles and numerous studies conducted that support that figure.


gazillion, eh? I looked over at the QDM site and did not see any that jumped out at me. I did see an article that mentioned a paper regarding the effect *extremely* high densities(100 dpsm) had on recruitment and antler development, but this was due to behavioral perversions caused by the high densities.

I guess I will ask on the other forums. With that many articles I'm sure I'll get a hit. I'm interested because K is one of those funny numbers you know.



Munsterlndr said:


> It probably would have spread faster but that's just a logical guess.


No empirical evidence that they furthered their goals does not bode well for the future of CWD management.



Munsterlndr said:


> I'm not suggesting lowering DD to 6 dpsm in the LP, ... Densities are going to depend on the given area but they should probably be reduced by half in much of the SLP.


If it does not help in areas with 6 dpsm then what makes you think 50% of current LP densities will help. Intuition I guess?

It has been shown that as deer densities get lower deer still seek out social contact as that is in their nature. Ranges expand. In effect deer compensate for lower densities by traveling more.


----------



## scott kavanaugh (Jan 8, 2006)

yoopertoo said:


> If it does not help in areas with 6 dpsm then what makes you think 50% of current LP densities will help. Intuition I guess?
> 
> It has been shown that as deer densities get lower deer still seek out social contact as that is in their nature. Ranges expand. In effect deer compensate for lower densities by traveling more.


Hmmm!!!! I think there are some very important facts surfacing here. I know this isn't TB munsterlndr, but in the same light, they could finish off the rest of the deer in the NLP in the name of TB. Whatever herd managed to survive would still be infected, we all know that.

If CWD is going to live on in our herd regardless of us decimating our deer herd more in the NLP, and similar or worst in the rest of the state. (Regardless of what reasoning is being used to justify it.) It would be just as wrong as the TB fiasco.


----------



## deathfromabove (Mar 2, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Pure surmise that the vast majority of deer shot over bait are yearling bucks. There are no statistics gathered that would validate your theory. At best you can say that the vast majority of deer harvested in Michigan are shot over bait, especially during archery season. You are hung up on the idea of only harvesting does. Earth to DFA, if you are attempting to reduce resident populations by approx. 50%, then you better start whacking, bucks, does and fawns indiscriminately. We are not trying to fine tune sex ratio's or advance age structure here, we need to slaughter a substantial portion of the herd and using bait is an effective tool in accomplishing that. Why do you think the sharpshooters that were employed in the CWD zone in Wisconsin hunted over bait, because it would decrease their chances of success?
> 
> *come on now munster how did present baiting pre cwd......help control Michigan's deer pop????????
> 
> ...


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

DFA,, ya gotta wonder though, had WI enacted an "extermination plan" _immediately_ after they found CWD, would it have spread to the extent it has in WI? Who knows. And BTW,,,, a _chuckle_?,, all I got was a chuckle outta that one??


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

L&O baited me. 

I like L&O's stuff on these boards, don't agree with some of it, but we share enough like-thinking on enough subjects that.....I'm gonna go for his bait. Partially.

L&O asked for a comment on Ed Spin's recent posts. I've been itchin' to do so, but have held due to my appreciation for the insights and information Ed has shared on the forums. I've learned stuff. He has helped me.

But, with that said, the idea of individual hunter created food-plots on State game areas gives me great pause. The problems that would cause are too easy to imagine: the 'territoriality' issue being paramount; not to mention potential negative habitat impacts by guys with their glyphosate & throw&grow seeds.

Those SGA's provide habitat for more than just deer. Are enjoyed by more than just hunters. To unleash anybody with a backpack sprayer onto that ground creates too big of a risk for conflict.

Plus with several of the local SGA's that I am familiar with and occasionally hunt in December, the DNR already has a program where crops are left standing for wildlife usage. I know and am friendly with one farmer who puts in corn or beans or seed clover into two nearby SGA's. He pays no cash rent but bears all prep, seeding & harvest expenses......and leaves 50% of the crop standing for wildlife. THAT is a much more manageable program than Ed's alternative.

Without a more detailed airing of his plans and safeguards my initial reaction is "No" 

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

Next, the issue of scofflaw baiting......bait practices beyond the legal 2gallons/100sqft and the skepticism displayed by some that it is really an a legitimate issue, as evidenced by this post: 

_"Instead of always using your anecdotal evidence............. maybe you could come up with some other evidence for baiting laws being massively violated."_

Folks, you just aren't gonna get that emperical evidence. No one is compiling it. "Proof" will have to live within the plethora of anecdotal observations.

Illegal baiting is just that.....illegal. Attempting to get a verifiable survey from hunters along the lines of "do you illegally bait" won't happen. Even doing field surveys of illegal piles vs legal piles is impractical......we struggle now just doing that for the more important enforcement function. 

No, for now, we will have to remain at an impasse where those who support the ban will firmly believe, sincerely believe, that the vast majority of hunters who bait dump out the pre-packaged foodstuffs in one fell swoop regardless if it is well beyond the 2-gallon limit, let alone spread over that 10x10.

Versus the pro-bait contingent who will not accept that it is a reality without harder data than "this is what I've seen". 

I will no longer argue the issue, tho I will repeat my belief that scofflaw baiting has been endemic. Pinefarms' posts about all the associated ills of baiting....his opinion and the opinion of DNR biologists that he is acquainted with seems to exactly mirror my own experience in what I've seen and in my conversations with DNR biologists.

More importantly, I think the issue of who did what in the past is now moot. All baiting is now illegal. Any baiting is a scofflaw activity. A poaching activity. (LP, of course). So the need for verifiable data, for photos, for surveys on how much was really illegal can be dispensed with. 

Neither the pro-bait or pro-ban factions are going to agree on the issue of prior scofflaw bait practices. And we don't need to. We can move on.


----------



## sagittarius (Jun 2, 2004)

William H Bonney said:


> Why? Did the compromise negatively impact you personally?? Or the herd?


Both, plus the law enforcement issue of wasting time, money, and resources with a partially allowed baiting regulation.



William H Bonney said:


> Because evidently the infection rate didn't change after the baiting compromise.


Not enough sampling data was collected before, during, or after the compromize to make that conclusion. 



William H Bonney said:


> DFA,, ya gotta wonder though, had WI enacted an "extermination plan" _immediately_ after they found CWD, would it have spread to the extent it has in WI? Who knows. And BTW,,,, a _chuckle_?,, all I got was a chuckle outta that one??


 Maybe, maybe not, depends on how it might have been implemented.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

sagittarius said:


> Both, plus the law enforcement issue of wasting time, money, and resources with a partially allowed baiting regulation.
> 
> Not enough sampling data was collected before, during, or after the compromize to make that conclusion.
> 
> Maybe, maybe not, depends on how it might have been implemented.


Ok,,, we've had a partially allowed baiting program here for a while so that's a non-issue. How did it negatively effect the herd in WI?


As for not enough sampling data???
There's been more data posted on here than I've ever seen.


----------



## yoopertoo (Nov 23, 2005)

Someone said ...


> _Next, the issue of scofflaw baiting......bait practices beyond the legal 2gallons/100sqft and the skepticism displayed by some that it is really an a legitimate issue, as evidenced by this post: _
> 
> _"Instead of always using your anecdotal evidence............. maybe you could come up with some other evidence for baiting laws being massively violated."_
> 
> ...


First, the issue is not regarding current scofflaws. We all know baiting in the LP is now illegal and should not be condoned or practiced. Period. The issue is whether someone can use claims about a *prior* practice, when it was legal, to make claims about the legitimacy of present policy. If they do this then they hold the burden of providing evidence to support their claims.

Second, if someone states that there is no way information can be verified then that information is worthless in a logical discussion. 

Third, the question is not about whether every hunter complied (past tense) with once legal baiting laws. The question is if the violations, and their numbers, constituted a significant increase in the likelihood of the spread of CWD. For example, was the violation 3 gallons instead of 2. Would that really increase the likelihood of the spread of CWD anymore then 2 gallons would have. After all, we are talking about opposition to baiting based purely on our concern for the spread of CWD. (Note: I'm assuming the reason the DNR enacted 2 gallons over 10X10 was to mimic natural foraging) 

Fourth, Just because there are those whose positions will not be changed does not mean we all idly sit by and let others voice their opinion unopposed.

For the record, I'm not pro baiting nor am I anti baiting,and I have no problem with regulations imposed to combat CWD. I know there are many who oppose baiting on grounds other then CWD. So I'm skeptical. For example, the DNR CWD plan said a case of CWD within 50 miles of a peninsular border would impose a baiting ban on the entire peninsula. Somebody somewhere thought 50 miles was some magic number. If so why would a case in Kent county magically mean you could not bait in Emmet county. Does not make sense.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Well, Y2, you have presented a well articulated argument.

Of course, I like best your use of me as a quote source. Shucks.

But if I'm good'nuff to be quoted by you....well then, I think I'll quote myself also:
(tho I will cheat a bit an slightly alter my own words...but I'll signal when)

_"I will no longer argue the issue, tho I will *hold* my belief that scofflaw baiting *was *endemic"_

And.............

_"All baiting is now illegal."

"We can move on."_


----------

