# QDM and Baiting



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

Okay I have a question then about baiting and food plots. I just watched a video of realtree outdoors and the episode was on a food plot on the milk river, now there were 30-40 deer out in this food plot and they were nose to nose at some times and some small groups were eating right down out of the same plants, also they all seemed to be in the same general vicinity of each other not spread out like you might think. My question is this, what is the difference between nose to nose on a bait pile or nose to nose in a food plot. This is just a legitimate question not intended to anger anybody, just want information.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

I was only suggesting that I thought quite a few less bucks would be killed overall without the use of bait. And if the only purpose of antler regs is to protect another 25-40% of yearling bucks, there'd be no need for antler regs without bait. If we have continued baiting, then antler regs is a legitimate option. If no baiting, I see no need for antler regs. BTW, I do agree that many enjoy the pleasure of being able to see more deer with bait.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

mecheadSR,

If a property has 40-50 deer feeding in a _small_ food plot at one time, then I would question just how well that property is managed. In a healthy deer density, no more than one social unit will feed in the plot at one time (again, a small plot). This is "normal" deer behavior when "living space" is not limited. Deer do not like sharing food sources _at the same time_ with other social units. If you watch a group of deer feeding in a small opening, when another group approaches, the dominant female of the feeding group will immediately begin to display aggressive body posturing towards the arriving group (lay ears back, approach stiff-legged, turning sideways to show body size, etc.). In a healthy deer density, one social group will feed and the next social group will not approach until the first group has left. They don't mind sharing food sources or even territories (doe social units often have overlapping home ranges), except they don't want to share that space _at the same time_ as another social unit.

When I tour and assess a property, if I see multiple doe social units feeding in a single small plot at the same time, I know immediately that food sources for that herd are too limited. The hunters/managers need to both increase food sources AND decrease herd density.


----------



## campblujay (Jan 21, 2004)

BSK's response to the question by mechhead is what I alluded to in an earlier post. 

If your following QDM principles which include balancing a herd with its habitat, then there is no need for baiting them (either with a few piles of food OR its equivalent in a small food plot of rape). He pointed out clearly that when that many deer are making contact in a plot, theres too many. People do not grasp the herd reduction portion of QDM, they tend to block that out as they speak of and focus on bigger horns IMO.

Does anyone other than me see the irony of that situation? 

And as you delve into QDM, the discussions can get much deeper than baiting. Such as natural food supply versus 5 acres of chufa! There are purists of the Sand County Foundation and Izaac Walton etc... that will argue against planting non-native or non-natural food plots for wildlife. An
example would be a field of corn in the middle of a woodlot. Not natural.

So I can relate to the origional question of the need to bait by those in the QDMA ranks. And I still am wondering why they take a neutral stance instead of being against baiting. I fail to see the benefit to the resource of baiting.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

campblujay wrote:
*People do not grasp the herd reduction portion of QDM, they tend to block that out as they speak of and focus on bigger horns IMO.

Does anyone other than me see the irony of that situation?*

Boy did you say a mouthful in that post. Nothing irks me, well "irks" is probably too strong of a word, _disappoints_ me more than to hear hunters/managers talking about the buck aspects of QDM and nothing else. If you read some outdoor media, you would believe QDM is only about big bucks and food plots.

There are three aspects of QDM. I call them the "triad" of QDM:

1)Increasing buck age structure (accomplished through passing up young bucks)

2) Balancing the sex ratio (accomplished by passing up young bucks [increasing the buck population] and harvesting more does [decreasing the doe population])

3) Maintaining herd density well below the maximum number the habitat can support (accomplished primarily through doe harvests)

Notice anything there? *Half* of QDM harvest guidelines are about doe harvests. Yet you almost never hear hunters/managers talk about that!

Yes, you can quote me what is said about QDM and habitat management on the QDMA website, but QDM is first and foremost a *harvest guideline*. It is a manner of altering herd dynamics through selective harvest. QDM can be completely implemented without the _first bit of habitat management_. Yes, habitat management is an extremely powerful management tool, but habitat management can be a part of _any_ herd/harvest strategy. It is not an integral part of QDM. I have seen excellent and successful QDM programs run on properties that receive no habitat management.


*There are purists of the Sand County Foundation and Izaac Walton etc... that will argue against planting non-native or non-natural food plots for wildlife. An
example would be a field of corn in the middle of a woodlot. Not natural.*

As I've said many, many times: food plots should not be used to produce _more_ food resources so a property will carry more deer. Habitat management should be used for that. Food plots should be used to provide _higher-quality_ food sources (for improving herd health). In essence, food plots should not be used to _carry_ a deer herd. The natural habitat should be used for that.


*So I can relate to the origional question of the need to bait by those in the QDMA ranks. And I still am wondering why they take a neutral stance instead of being against baiting. I fail to see the benefit to the resource of baiting.*

Speaking not as a representative of the QDMA, I personally suspect any "neutral" or "supportive" view of baiting by the organization would be an attempt to not polarize the issue. The organization is so thrilled by the support and membership it is gaining from MI and other states that allow baiting, they don't want to alienate any potential new members by taking a stance against a very popular practice.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Great post Brian. Gets my vote for post of the year.

Doe harvest is my top priority. It is my dream that someday we will have a doe season before the rut and the buck season after the rut. As opposed to what we have now. Special seasons for every special interest`s groups favorite weapon.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Bob S,

On my own personal hunting property, we put far more effort each year into shooting does than we do bucks. For older bucks, there is a 10-12 day peak rut window when they are most killable. In fact 80% of our older buck harvests come from that peak rut window, even though we hunt from the end of September through mid-January.

If you put enough harvest pressure on does, they will become a very difficult animal to successfully hunt. Does far outnumber older bucks on my property, yet our annual harvest of deer will be only 60% does and 40% bucks. And that is from long seasons where does are always legal, and from a management practice where we shoot ever doe we see. Yet does are under-represented in the harvest because they have learned how to avoid us human hunters very effectively.

So many hunters aren't interested in shooting does because does are a dime a dozen and present little challenge. Yet if you start puting the hammer down on the does, they will become a different creature! I can honestly say an old doe that has lived her entire life under extreme doe harvest pressure is definitely harder to kill than an old wary buck. I have literally found does dying of old age on properties where if it is female and moves during daylight, it is dead. Die of old age under those circumstances? That's one sharp critter!


*It is my dream that someday we will have a doe season before the rut and the buck season after the rut.*

If I could ever learn to accurately shoot a bow at live deer--something that appears to be outside the realm of my physical abilities  --I could take some does before the rut (in TN, you can take 6 does with a bow). Of greater help is our new limits during our first week-long MZ season. This season fall approximately a week to two weeks before peak rut, and as of this year, hunters in my area can take 6 does during the MZ week. I can promise you I will be hunting every day of that week-long season, trying to take as many does as possible _before_ the rut.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

At least in my immediate area, I can put a check in the box for antlerless harvest. Since 1998, we've done our share and a few of our neighbors have done a bit more than their share, IMHO. And I see that trend continuing to go on strong. My county averages around 30 antlerless permits per sq mile and many get filled. Between my observations and that of the retired CO from my county, our local township herd has been reduced 50-70% since a high in the early 1990's. An admittedly out of control high. We probably had 60-70 deer per sq mile and the habitat was not improved anywhere. Now my focus is on buck age structure and really improving the habitat. And getting my neighbors to greatly improve their habitat. In fact, I'm meeting my neighbor to the east next week to discuss cutting many of his huge poplars next winter. I'm first going to drive him around our place to show him what can happen when you do cuttings. He has one area on the fence line that will be super sweet, if he agree's on the cutting. I will cut many of my tree's on my side to increase the opening for regrowth also. I bet he also has a few small feral meadows that could quickly converted into small food plots to give added benefit. The question is, when talking about habitat and carry capacity, do you mean 15-20 deer per sq mile on poor habitat or 30-35 deer per sq mile on great habitat? While I'm sure many area's in the state has inadequate antlerless harvest, there are also other places where the program is running fairly smoothly and we can start to direct our energies to other priorities. IMHO


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

campblujay,

Everyone has to decide for themselves what is too "unnatural." When it comes to wildlife management, each person will have a different "cut-off" point for "natural" versus "unnatural."

We do site-specific management for a living. We often have clients that request specific management that--for me personally--steps over the line. If the client doesn't have a problem with that practice, we _will_ provide that service in the most biologically sound manner possible. However, I wouldn't use it on my personal property because--for me--it steps over the line. I could use heavy supplimental feeding on my propert. In fact I could probably get the feed for free. Yet I don't. I could use genetic manipulation (culling), but I don't. For my "enjoyment of the management and hunting experience," those practices step over the line from wildlife management to animal husbandry (care of domestic livestock). But I'm not going to put someone down--ethically--who uses those practices. That is their personal choice. My only comments would be if the person was not using those practices in a biologically acceptable manner.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

[email protected] wrote:
*In fact, I'm meeting my neighbor to the east next week to discuss cutting many of his huge poplars next winter.*

Without question, you can do more "good habitat management" with a chainsaw than any other tool. A plow can do a lot food-wise, but when it comes to over-all habitat needs for deer, the chainsaw is even better.


*The question is, when talking about habitat and carry capacity, do you mean 15-20 deer per sq mile on poor habitat or 30-35 deer per sq mile on great habitat?

Between my observations and that of the retired CO from my county, our local township herd has been reduced 50-70% since a high in the early 1990's. An admittedly out of control high. We probably had 60-70 deer per sq mile and the habitat was not improved anywhere.*

Exactly where your deer herd is in relation to maximum production of the habitat can only be determined by examining browse pressure on the habitat during the most stressful times of year, and by examining body weights and other health indicators by sex and age-class.

Observation data (what deer are seen in daylight, and the "rate" at which they are seen [deer seen per observation hour]) can provide some great trend data. However, observation data does have its limitations. Much of daylight deer activity is driven by human pressure. If deer feel pressured, they will move less during daylight. And more importantly, specific groups of deer that experience more pressure than other groups will learn to move less during daylight. This is important when considering changing harvest pressure. Sex and age-classes of deer that are not being targetted by hunters will learn they can walk around in daylight with impunity. Specific sex or age-class deer that are under intense harvest pressure will quickly learn NOT to walk around in daylight.

This rapid learning ability of deer leads many hunters/managers to misinterpret observation data. If does had not been targetted in the past, they probably were very active and observable during daylight. However, once harvest pressure is applied to these does, they suddenly disappear. This can fool hunters/managers into believing they have really knocked down the doe population, when in reality, the doe population has just reacted to the increased harvest pressure by turning nocturnal. These changes in daylight activity can become extreme under extreme harvest pressure. On my personal property last year--where we practice _ extreme_ harvest pressure on does--doe sighting rates dropped to all time lows. Yet camera surveys found our doe population is now at all time highs. Deer observation rates don't always tell the whole story. Changes in harvest pressure can cause huge changes in what deer are seen during daylight and how often. And these changes will not be linked in any way to the actual deer population.

The same is often true of young bucks. When they are being intensively targetted, they learn to move less in daylight. Once harvest pressure is removed (QDM), they start walking around in daylight without a care in the world. This will cause huge increases in young buck sighting rates on a given property, sometimes far in excess of these animals actual representation in the herd. One of the most common comments we hear after a property has switched to QDM for a year or two is, "Where did all these yearling bucks come from!?" They seem to just come out of the woodwork. Now we do have data that strongly suggest young bucks are attracted to areas managed under QDM, but much of the increase in sightings is due to increased daylight movement allowed by changes in harvest pressure.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

BSK said:


> *Bob S wrote:
> *


Wrong Bob, but good answer.

I mentioned to farmlegend last weekend at the convention that I now spend more days on my property with a chainsaw than with a gun.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Whoops! Sorry for the mix-up. Post edited.


----------



## Pinefarm (Sep 19, 2000)

Bob S,
Same here. I have 3 chainsaws and one bow and I probably spend 3 times as much time doing habitat work as I do hunting. To be honest, I love doing the habitat work and derive great satisfaction from it. Parts of our club look like hurricane Andrew blew through it. A tangled mass that is impassable and is now overgrown with lush re-gen. The second growth and overall thickness, compared to just 5-7 years ago is simply remarkable. For the first couple years after I started cutting, the place was pretty thin. But it's really coming into it's own now. While on my commute to work, I've seen a noticeable decrease in deer sightings in the general area. However, this Spring and Summer, for the first time in several years, I'm seeing more deer and tracks at our place. I attribute all of that to vastly improving the overall habitat and adding 6 food plots, with another one under "construction". I should have it ready by next Spring. I thought that Gary Alt had a good perspective at the antler think tank. He said that people seem to have no problem connecting good water quality and river habitat with having trout, salmon and steelhead in rivers. But too many hunters can't make that connection with the deer woods. Too many hunters feel that being able to see 150 yards in the woods is natural and decent deer habitat. I also don't recall who said it there, but one of the speakers said that "the #1 predator of grouse is deer". Meaning that deer destroy more grouse habitat and grouse than hunters could ever dream of. And the truth is, if you have good grouse habitat, you usually have good deer habitat/hunting in the same place. So, if you have property, I'd seriously think about talking to someone in the know and create a plan for some cutting. You'd be suprised at the results. I don't know who said it (Charles Alzheimer maybe?) but he said "the #1 management tool for whitetails is the chainsaw". I agree.


----------



## Happy Hunter (Apr 14, 2004)

" But too many hunters can't make that connection with the deer woods. Too many hunters feel that being able to see 150 yards in the woods is natural and decent deer habitat. I also don't recall who said it there, but one of the speakers said that "the #1 predator of grouse is deer". Meaning that deer destroy more grouse habitat and grouse than hunters could ever dream of"

Alt and most game managers love to blame the deer for all the ills of our forests , but here is the rest of the story. The truth is that Mother Nature and natural forest progress does more to destroy grouse and deer habitat than any other factor. The PGC conducted studies that showed that the browse production of a decreased by 75% in just 12 years even with no deer present. In 20 years browse production is so low that a clearcut that could support 60 DPSM in the first 10 years can now support only 5 DPSM. Furthermore, the carrying compacity remains at that level for the next 40-60 years ,unless some type of cutting is done ,either for pulp or as timber stand improvement.


----------



## bde (Jun 22, 2004)

One would hope that the baiters grow beyond sitting over feed and get into patterning , reading sign, planning ambushes on travel routes and hunting funnels. Learning to enjoy the chess game of whitetail hunting.
We are all out there for differing reasons, every hunter cuts his teeth some way but as NJ said your missing what hunting really is if this is your only method.
BDE


----------



## Swamper (Apr 12, 2004)

On this day of remembering Independence, freedom of speech, religion,and thought, when our ancestors took up the call of liberty and took down the muskets over the fireplace to fight for our freedom and fewer RESTRICTIONS on our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. I wish all of you a great 4th of July and let's give thanks for all that we have in Michigan, including hunting. 

Swamper (living in Germany temporarily)


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

[email protected] said:


> Parts of our club look like hurricane Andrew blew through it. A tangled mass that is impassable and is now overgrown with lush re-gen .


Shortly after I joined the QDMA I had a discussion with Ed Spin about cutting trees. Ed told me that when you cut enough trees that you can`t walk through the area, that is how the deer like it. That advise along with reading books by Neal and Craig Dougherty, and Charles Alsheimer is why I have been doing so much cutting in my mature woods.




[email protected] said:


> I also don't recall who said it there, but one of the speakers said that "the #1 predator of grouse is deer".


That was Charlie Alsheimer during his slide show.


----------



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

Swamper said:


> when our ancestors took up the call of liberty and took down the muskets over the fireplace to fight for our freedom and fewer RESTRICTIONS on our pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness.


From a show on the History Chanel on Friday I learned that only 1/3 of the colonist wanted independence from England. The other 2/3 either didn`t care or wanted to remain as British subjects. So had not a small minority rose up and opposed the status quo, we would not be celebrating anything today. Where would we be today if our forefathers needed 66% support in order to break away from England?


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Bob S,

Actually it was more like 20-25%--just a radical few--who wanted to be an independent country. Those few are the reason we are what we are.


----------



## Guest (Jul 5, 2004)

Wow! What an interesting thread. Been away for a few days preparing a few of my and friends deer attractantant food plots. Expect to start planting in mid July (soybeans) and finish in late August (wheat,oats, triticale, rye and winter peas. 

BSK, it was my pleasure meeting you at the convention, also many of you introduced yourself to me and it is heart warming to see so many interested in the welfare of our deer. Brian your posts are exceptionally informative and considerate of those lacking deer biological facts, even when they seemingly give a strong negative view in opposition to balanced deer management. Thanks for your patient and professional approach. We all can learn from you, please stay in touch Brian.

As you probably all know I'm on the Board of Directors National QDMA and yes, we have covered the subject of Baiting and more than once. Brian hit on the truest QDMA position on baiting. 

We do not have an official position on baiting for many reasons and the fact that it is legal in many states is just one of them. There are other reasons for baiting that are regionallly driven, example, in the low country of South Carolina, where the cover is beyond belief, baiting is about the only effective method to control the doe segment.

I noted that someone has sent a letter to the QDMA for an official answer on their position on baiting and that is exactly what should be done. Due to the sensitivity of this subject the board has created an information letter on baiting and directed either our Executive Director, Brian Murphy or the Board Chairman,Jimmy Bullock to answer any questions on the QDMA's position on baiting. 

I think that I can safely say that the QDMA does not officially support baiting, but understands and accepts the fact that there are circumstances that allow for some mitigation (same is true for supplemental feeding). Now Brian, don't beat me up too much for speaking out of turn.

Keep the fun in hunting!


----------



## bunji_hunter (Jul 4, 2003)

Ruffles up the collar.......

OK fellas and fellettes it time for some down to earth reality checks. since quoting people would take all night I'm not going to do that. let me just get to the points I see as false positives and the reality of the truth.

False positive number one:
Some say it promotes nose to nose contact making for a higher probability of disease spread.
Reality: 
Whitetails are social animals and have nose to nose contact with each other every day within their peer structure. This is the same structure that would also be feeding together. This nose to nose contact is used for social status and comunication. This nose to nose contact is used for recogniction of fawns.

False positive number two:
Baiting creates the above carrying capacity of the land and causes the problems seen in winter time die offs.
Reality:
Baiting does creat population explosions through healthy animals being in abundance. Baiting alone does not make the carrying capacity to high unless there is year round feeding used in conjunction with it. Feeding Whitetails with (normally used) sugar beets increases the amount of fat produced to keep energy levels up during the winter season.

False positive number three:
Food plots do not act as bait piles.
Reality:
If it doesn't then why do we do it? Food plots by design are used to produce high protien forrage for animals to put on muscle, fat, and bone structure through the entire year. Bait piles are used to attract deer with high sugar content for fat deposits for winter energy. They are in escence year round bait stations on a different scale. Food plots are, like bait piles, not eaten year round. Our food plots in the U.P. are under snow for the better part of four months.

False positive number four:
Bait hunters see only smaller deer.
Reality:
Bait hunters with patients see large mature deer as well as smaller yearling animals. The bait hunter who has a brown down mentality will only shoot younger animals and many of those will be buttons. With patients bait hunters have shot very nice animals. I've seen ten-pointers taken right on the bait. The key to taking one was waiting out 4 yearlings, 2 does, 1 matriarch doe, and 2 fork horns. would most bait hunters wait that long? Would you?

Now a little background may be neccessary. I've stand hunted on farms, I've bait hunted on state land, and now I use property as food plots.

What is so different?
The food plot we have now is four acres of forrage food. At our stands we have mini plots around our stands. During hunting season we use a little bait to put animals in certain areas of those mini plots. Last year I did not take an animal. I was hunting a specific animal. I was hunting a ten-pointer who I saw four times during bow season and three times during rifle season. I did not take him this year and I hope he made it through the winter and comes back this year. I would guess his age to be in the 4.5 to 5.5 year range. Main beams were about two inches in diameter to the base, brow tines about 8 inches long, The rest were between 6 and 14 inches long and thick as well.

Now just to restate my points. There are truths and realities that need to be discussed. Knowing the truth and ignoring it makes for foolish conersation.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

bunji_hunter,

I *strongly* disagree with everything you posted. But I won't belabor the point because you are obviously a strong supporter of baiting. But your biological _facts_ are incorrect.


----------



## davidshane (Feb 29, 2004)

My guess would be that there are a lot of people that have responded to this post that concider themsevles near experts on deer, deer hunting, and deer management. I also would quess that most probably are very knowlegable folks. But heres the thing that gets me: how do so many smart people know so little about fellow hunters?

To sit here and hear all of the smart peoples perception of hunters that use bait is nearly unbearable. I hunt stateland and therefor have contact with many many other hunters. Of the people that hunt the stateland around me, I guess 90% use bait. They also scout hard for good areas and good ambush site, play wind directions and figure in how other hunters will affect their hunt. They work hard to maintain multiple stands and to keep those stands baited and scent free (this is not easy with the limited amount of bait that can be used). Bait hunters are serious hunters too. They enjoy the hunt just as much as some of the experts here, and I'm quite sure, hunt just as hard and take home the same satisfaction. 

Regarding the kills taken over bait, come on - please. I/We all know guys that have killed spikes and buttons over bait. We also know guys that have killed them on drives and shot them in bean fields too. It would be fair to say that more small bucks are killed at bait then in other methods of hunting; buts only because more hunters hunt over bait. However, many groups of hunters practice their own version of QDM, to include the baiters. Our group looks to shot only very good 6 points or better and we rarely harvest 6 points because we sit for something larger. Last year are small group shot only three bucks - 1 8pte, 1 9pte and 1 10pte (145 class). we'll also take a few does for meat. Thats that!

I too didn't want to get into this baiting thing again; however, it seems to me that typically, non baiter won't let it go. They say they don't want to talk about it again, but then - off we go again.

One mans .02. I hope all enjoy this comming season.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

I agree with you David there are a lot of hunters who use bait and that does not make them bad! There seems to be a perception that if you hunt with bait, the deer walk in and stand there ready for you to kill them then you wipe the drool from your chin and the snot from your nose and pull you pants up a little cause they are starting to slip a little and walk over to drag your button buck out to the pile of them you have behind the woodshed. This whole thing is getting silly there is a growing eliteist attitude out there that if you bait "you must not be a real hunter". As I have said before sometimes I do bait and I shoot a lot more does that I do bucks but is it still good to do so even if I do it over bait? I would love to be able to 400 acres and folow the steps of QDM to the letter and take large bucks every year, have food plots that are good all winter long, have a balanced buck to doe ratio etc etc etc But I don't have the 400 acres right now. I am talking as an avid hunter who is new to the QDM conversation. I like what I hear for the most part but I must say the bashing of baiters and those who do not take part in this management philosophy will only harm your efforts to convert others to this school of thought and that is not what you want is it? Educate people don't bash them because you could push them and their support away forever which could hurt your QDM in the future. JMO

AW


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Adam,

I'm not trying to bash baiters--honestly. Baiting is a bad idea biologically, but ethically--to each their own. Although I do worry about the perception of baiting among non-hunters, and your comment about invalid perceptions:

_There seems to be a perception that if you hunt with bait, the deer walk in and stand there ready for you to kill them then you wipe the drool from your chin and the snot from your nose and pull you pants up a little cause they are starting to slip a little and walk over to drag your button buck out to the pile of them you have behind the woodshed._

*are* accurate. That *IS* the perception-rightly or wrongly--that most non-hunters (and even non-baiting hunters) have of baiting. Is that really the perception we want people to have of hunting, even if that perception is inaccurate?

I didn't grow up hunting over bait, so I have a relatively negative attitude towards it. But that doesn't mean it is "wrong," just that I have a negative _perception_ of it. Coming from that perception, my question is, why bait? I'm seriously asking. And before anyone says it, "because my neighbors are doing it" doesn't cut it with me. My neighbors "manage" very different than I do, but that doesn't change how I will manage.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Well BSK I do not bait because my neighbors do and as I have said in the past, If I hunt 50 days a year for deer, maybe 10 are over bait. As to the perception I think it is wrong to allow that perception to continue by promoting that perception from members of the hunting community. You did not grow up baiting and so I see the issues you may have with it and I respect you for that but the baiting rules are so different than what they used to be here. There are no longer 2 ton piles of carrots in the woods (at least not legally) and most used it as a way to see deer. You must remember not all people own a large tract of land and have time to hunt every night of the week so they are hunting state land and they may only have a few days a year so they try to coax a few deer a little closer with some bait so they may have the opportunity to bag a whitetail. I see your point clealry but my point was that in order to get the QDM thing to be accepted among hunters there needs to be an education that takes place not stereotyping and bashing. Remembr like I said not all hunters are the same, some struggle to find property or spots to hunt every year and as they get permision to hunt or get that spot on state land, their biggest concern isn't QDM that is all I am saying I fully respect your position on this issue

AW


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

*...so they are hunting state land and they may only have a few days a year so they try to coax a few deer a little closer with some bait so they may have the opportunity to bag a whitetail.*

Hey, works for me. I don't have a problem with that.


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

You hear comments from " time to time" of those claiming food plots are the same as baiting. It only leads me to believe that someone making that claim has never hunted with a food plot, never managed their land with one, maybe doesn' t own land, and really has no experience with what they are actually claiming. 

1. Food plots need to be a minimum 1/2 acre in size, unless they are considered " harvest plots" -plots hunted over as the deer are on their way to larger, safer, destination plots. Small plots are quickly consumed and offer no further attraction then an empty apple tree. Most have many entrance and exit routes. 

Bait piles are much smaller and congregate deer to a specific site. 

2. Food plots help the wildlife, as well as deer, over an entire year(or 9 months up here). 

Bait piles around my house feed deer for about 2 weeks, on average, with some for 1 week or less, and very few over 3 weeks. 

3. Food plots offer up to 40% protein during critical growing periods. 

Corn offers 7% protein and can be toxic if consumed in large quantities by starving deer in need of solid forages, solid forages such as the legumes or brassicas that are planted in food plots. 

4. Food Plots offer food anytime of the day, most of the year, and do not concentrate deer to a single pile, just before dark, to be quickly consumed. In this way, a food plot is utalized many times a day, for months at a time, greatly increasing the overall health of the animal, including increased lactation rates, improved fawn mortality rates, increased fat reserves, and increased antler growth. 

Bait piles, around here, are totally consumed in about 2 weeks, and do nothing more nutritionaly than give the deer a little candy before winter. 

5. Due to the fact that food plots are used many times throughout the day, the effects of " overbrowsing" on local habitats is greatly decreased. 

Bait piles do not help the local habitat, in fact, they may deplete various areas by concentrating deer to a single spot in the woods. 

6. Food plots are more dificult to hunt over, as deer can enter or exit at any time, on many trails, with no need to arrive and quickly consume what' s left before the supply is depleted. To be succussful, food plots are best hunted in the trails that lead to and from bedding areas, just like a farm field, acorn crop, or other natural food sources. 

Bait piles congregate deer to a specific location, and young, inexperienced deer, particularily yearling bucks, come readily to a bait pile at the end of a 2-track, making them " sitting ducks" . 

7. It takes a great effort to establish a food plot, with liming, fertalization, and seeding taking a considerable amount of work to complete. A food plot is a year-round maintainance project of " fun-work" , with a certain amount of passion and love for the sport needed to carry out the task. 

Around here, baiting amounts to stopping by the " Holiday" gas station on the way to checking into a motel or cabin in the area, and then throwing out a few bags, or I mean " 2 gallons" , within walking distance to the ATV, other vehicle, or cabin. 

8. Those who have hunted over food plots realize quickly that deer turn nocturnal and it is common to ruin a food plot for daytime use very quickly because deer do not have to visit at any certain time due to the abundace of food. 

A bait pile conregates deer very quickly to a single spot before the " 2-gallons" is used up. 

9. Most who use food plots are out on their property often througout the entire year, learning woodsmanship, funnels, bedding areas, deer trails, and other traditional hunting methods to more effectively utalize their food plots. 

Again, around here baiting is a 2 week thing, with very few hunters in the woods around my property at any other time than the weekend before gun season, and the week of gun season. I find many of the baiters around here, but NOT ALL, are " fair-weather hunters" , with no real love, passion, or care for the deer or habitat. 

10. Food plots do not assist in the spread of disease, such as TB. 

Bait piles may. 

11. Food plots are quickly covered with snow, and do not change the migratory patterns of deer, especially the young. 

Bait piles have attracted young fawns late into the migratory period, in which they are highly succeptable to predation and weather, and often die due to the fact the migration routes are " learned" , not " heriditary" , and they do not know to " head to yard" . The funny thing about this is that I' m the one who finds this evidence, long after the people who put out the bait have gone back down state for another 11.5 months, or the guys in town are back to watching football and icefishing.

You could go on and on, but bottom line...HUGE difference. Also, If the QDMA isn't against baiting, to me, it's a show of support. I would guess that baiting and the QDMA has been around long enough to form an opinion one way or another. I see it not different than a kid asking a parent, "can I go to John's house and play?". If the parent said, "well, we aren't going to say you can't"....that's a yes in my book.

That being said, personally, I'd rather they stay nuetral for the time being. We'll just have to see.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Jeff I am not against baiting and you know a lot more on this subject than I do. I am not here to say a bait pile is super beneficial to the deer herd because they are not. You are correct about the corn in large quantities killing deer. We find a good number of fawns in the spring even when the severity was not bad at all and I don't know who is baiting by us and who isn't. 

The argument for comparing bait piles to a food plot I believe is the ethics argument that there is something there which attracts the deer that is not there naturally. By no means would I compare the nutritional benefits of a food plot with that of a bait pile. Some very good points there

AW


----------



## Jeff Sturgis (Mar 28, 2002)

I guess one of the things that can be under the microscope is the term "natural". "Natural" is many things to many people. For example, the indians once burned huge sections of land to promote new growth and raise carrying capacity. Forest fires and extensive logging were very common in the past and were the great equalizer between old growth deserts and low populations. Now we have herbacide and planted rows of pine. Natural to some may mean 200 year old white pines with little to no wildlife, or it may be the natural clearings of fires or even logging practices.

Bottom line though...what's natural anymore? As Grant Woods pointed out in his seminar at last weekends QDMA convention, many peoples form of "natural" does not take into account the earths greatest predator ever...MAN. Man is always been around to shape the earth, forest, and game populations. I guess to me, creating wildlife openings and enhancing native vegitation is more along the lines of past clearcutting and forest destroying fire than a pile of corn or carrots.

We had a neighbor baiting really close to us last year, and we had a young doe killed in a logging operation next to us that the logger said appeared to have been trapped by the excessive snow piles and maze of trails, it eventually was cornered and killed. Would that deer have otherwise been around if the baiting wasn't taking place? who knows but it might not have helped. Most of the rest of the herd was completely gone by then.


----------



## Adam Waszak (Apr 12, 2004)

Oh I agree on the whats natural question I was just relaying what others have said to me as far as the comparison (ethically) between the food plots and bait. And again a lot of people use bait because they cannot have food plots due to no property or too little property to hunt or manage. It is an issue that will always be there and to be honest with the 2 gallon max law now there is no baiting legally unless you are out there 2 or three times a day replentishing the food for them. I still get a lot of people that tell me "my property I'll use as much as I want" so there is a lot of people with more than the 2 gallons out there. What are your thoughts on the suplemental feeding in the UP during the winter months and what exactly do they feed during this time so the nutrition is balanced for the deer herd? Thanks 

AW


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

NorthJeff,
So then are foodplots(1/2 acre or more)good and harvest plots(less than 1/2 acre)bad ? Should the the DNR ban foodplots of less than 1/2 acre ? Most people putting in foodplots are relatively new to this sort of thing. As they gain more & more experience the size & shape of their foodplots will change. These changes will funnel the deer to a few favorite spots where well placed treestands have been placed. Also the selection of what they plant will change. Highly desireable foods will be planted so that they peak after mid-Sept. Having more years of experience than most, I can tell you that taking a buck over or around a foodplot is a whole lot easier than over a baited area. It takes a lot more work & is better for the deer, but from my experience it is just simply easier. Maybe some other guys who started hunting around foodplots(not just crops) over 20 years ago might wish to respond with their experiences.

L & O


----------



## mecheadSR (Dec 18, 2003)

NorthJeff I have just a couple of response's then. What if the food plot is only a quarter of an acre or quite possibly only a 30 by 30ft section, are the deer attracted to it the same way they are to a bait pile and why can't they contract tb, if they are nose to nose on a 30 by 30ft bait pile why can't they get it on a 30 by 30ft food plot. I can guarantee that not every food plot is a half an acre big, that is for sure , so are anything smaller than a half acre gonna hurt the deer or help, does a small food plot act the same way as a large spread out bait pile. Like Adam said it is a great way to shoot a few does early in the season or in december when the snow fly's, and it is legal to do, we can't forget that. Not every person is able to make a food plot on there property, not every person has property, not every person can hunt 3-4 day's a week, maybe just a weekend a month or less than that. I know some people hate baiting and think it is wrong, I know some people love it and it's the only way to go, to me it makes great debait.


----------



## One Eye (Sep 10, 2000)

I think the social issues will actually determine this long before the biologicla reason, as this DNR and NRC are more concerned about politics than biology. Baiting will only remain legal as long as the non-hunter approves of this method. Please be sure to notice my use of the non-hunter. They make up the largest portion of the electorate, and they are mostly supportive (currently) of hunting (with some restrictions).

Just because we have "always" done it will not fly anymore. Just ask those Southern dog hunters, whose families have been chasing deer with dogs for generations. There are already efforts to restrict and/or eliminate this method of hunting.

Personally, I am against baiting regardless. I think the excuse that you do not own property is very weak. Michigan has large amounts of public property with varied habitat, and I continue to find excellent hunting on these lands without bait. If you only have a weekend to hunt, what makes you really expect to have a realistic chance at killing a deer on a regular basis?? This plays right into the whole culture that is dictating getting things easily and fast.

Dan


----------



## davidshane (Feb 29, 2004)

BSK,

First, I've read some of your post before and I'm quite sure you are a good guy.

Second, I can't believe some of what I hear you say. Infact, what I hear many say.

You dislike baiting because of it's negative effects; maybe there are some. But if we do away with all things that pose negative effects, we too must rid oursevles of all things that cause nose to nose or even nose to where nose has been. This would include mineral licks, deer sticks, supplemental feeding, small food plots, etc. This thought may seem extreme, but I'm sure a case could be made where each have some negative affect. 

To worry about the non hunting perception of any method is quite smart. However, to do away with baiting because some poeple see it as wrong would be dumb. I for one would much rather educate the population that lacks understanding than to freely give up my rights. It sounds as though that you feel that if the general public dislikes baiting than it needs to be abolished for the good of us all. I guess hound hunting will be the next to go; and after that trapping. Further more, we as hunters kill living creature for our own recreation (it can be looked at that way). So I guess in the end, you will want hunting to decease. Of coarse I know you don't. You love hunting just as much as I do. 

You say that because you did not grow up hunting with bait that it doesn't seem right to you (in so many words). Remember no one is attacking your hunting; you are attacking (if only through your words) ours / mine. I would only ask you and all that seem to want to bring up this topic and then smash the guys that use bait to stop with it. We are so much stronger as one than we are a seperate groups. 

I disagree with all that would vote down baiting, but this is America and we all have the right to our own opinion. No hard feelings ofcoarse - have a great day!


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

One Eye said:


> I think the social issues will actually determine this long before the biologicla reason, as this DNR and NRC are more concerned about politics than biology. Baiting will only remain legal as long as the non-hunter approves of this method. Please be sure to notice my use of the non-hunter. They make up the largest portion of the electorate


Good point. I sincerely hope that no one spearhead an effort to float a referendum for a ban on deer hunting over bait. Were it put to a vote of the entire citizenry of this state, I believe baiting would likely be outlawed. Certainly, those that support the privilege to hunt over bait would have a much tougher row to hoe than we had a few years ago on the bear baiting/hounding issue. 

Far better for HUNTERS to take the lead on this issue and insist that hunting deer over bait be banned. Improve the image of hunters amongst the vast non-hunting majority, and biologically defensible to boot.


----------



## BSK (Apr 10, 2004)

Davidshane,

*First, I've read some of your post before and I'm quite sure you are a good guy.*

Thanks for the vote of confidence. I think 


I really didnt want to get into this discussion because of the intensity of emotions involved in baiting debates, as well as the ambiguity of hunting ethics.

But there is just no way around itbaiting is not a good idea, biologically.

Considering your example of a bait pile and a tiny food plotthere is no comparison. A bait pile is a concentrated pile of food in a very tiny area. All the deer wanting to eat that food must put their nose in the same little spot on the ground. Even the smallest of food plots greatly reduces the risk of one deer feeding right over the same spot as a previous deer _in the time frame of the survivability of contagious pathogens outside of a deers body_ (saliva, urine, feces, etc.). Most pathogens will only survive a given time period outside the body, and that is critical.

EVERY deer that wants to eat from a bait pile is going to stick their face in the same 1 yard square pile of foodone right after another. Deer feeding in even the smallest food plot (1/8-acre) have approximately 625 square yards to feed from. What are the odds a following deer will come in contact with the body fluids of an infected deer that fed before them at a 1-square-yard bait pile? Near 100%. What are the odds of *every* following deer coming in contact with pathogens? Very near 100%. What are the odds of deer feeding in tiny food plot coming in contact _during the life-span of the contagious pathogen_ with body fluids of a previously feeding infected deer. Very, very low when they have 625 times more area to feed in, and astronomically low for more than one deer to come in contact with the pathogen. And that is for a food plot so tiny most hunters/manager wont create one that small. The smallest plots are generally 1/4 to 1/3 of an acre, which increase the area over which deer are feeding by 1,225 to 1,600 times larger than a bait pile. See where Im going with this?

I have watched deer feed at bait piles with eyes and electronic cameras (including video cameras). Deer feed one right after another at a bait pile. On the other hand, deer wander across a food plot, with few deer walking/feeding right behind another. The odds of picking up a contagious pathogen are extremely remote in a food plot (but not impossible). Plus, deer from different social units usually dont feed in the same plot at the same time, again reducing the time-frame in which infection could occur.

Of course there are many other factors to consider about bait. What is being fed? Corn can carry toxic molds and mildews. Anything with high sugar content (like sugar beets) is an excellent medium for bacterial growth.

As for salt licks, they certainly are a concern. However the high salinity of the area, both the salt itself and the salt leached into the surrounding soil, is generally an impossible medium for living organisms to survive in. However, that doesnt remove the possibility of non-living pathogens, such as prions. Salt licks deserve more study as possible disease transmission sites, especially for unusual diseases such as CWD.

Then you get into the whole ethics debate (which I hate because there are no clear-cut answers). Are food plots often used for the same thing as baitattracting deer to the gun? *Absolutely*. And that is one of the few biological up-sides to baitingit can help hunters harvest enough does to control herd density (and that is what most food plot hunting is used forshooting does. It is a mistake to expect to regularly shoot older bucks off food plots). Harvesting _enough_ does is the biggest problem hunters face. Having used food source bait to run photo censuses, I know there is considerable skill involved in choosing the best location for bait. Choose the wrong spot and you get nothing. Choose the right spot and you get a bonanza of deer. So Im not one who thinks baiting is the lazy or unskilled way to harvest deer. Often deer that come to bait are _extremely_ cautious. The same is true of deer that have been shot at in food plotsthey will stop using those food plots during daylight.

Im not one who thinks baiting is unethical. Im just pointing out the biological problems with bait (and Ive only scratched the surface with this discussionthere are many more biological down-sides). Then throw in the whole perception thing, and baiting ends up being a no-win situation for hunting in general.

But argue that bait isnt biologically dangerous to deer? You cant win that argument.

You're right, I didn't grow up with baiting so it doesn't seem right to me. *BUT* I'm not "attacking" baiting because I don't "like" it or others perceive it poorly. I'm saying baiting is a bad idea biologically, especially in these days of extremely over-populated deer herds. Any disease that comes along runs an even higher risk of spreading through the deer herds when baiting is widespread. That's all I'm saying. I'm not sayin it is wrong from an ethical standpoint, just seriously questioning its biological ramifications.

At the same time I'm also pointing out the negative perception baiting has among non-hunters (as does trophy hunting, dog hunting, supplemental feeding and any other "extreme" form of management/hunting). Those are just facts that hunters need to be aware of and to consider.

Am I pushing to have baiting outlawed? No. Do I like baiting? No--I think it is biologically dangerous. But so is letting our deer herds get to these insane densities that many areas have. In fact, THAT is more dangerous than baiting when it comes to the spread of disease.


----------



## One Eye (Sep 10, 2000)

davidshane said:


> To worry about the non hunting perception of any method is quite smart. However, to do away with baiting because some poeple see it as wrong would be dumb. I for one would much rather educate the population that lacks understanding than to freely give up my rights. It sounds as though that you feel that if the general public dislikes baiting than it needs to be abolished for the good of us all. I guess hound hunting will be the next to go; and after that trapping. Further more, we as hunters kill living creature for our own recreation (it can be looked at that way). So I guess in the end, you will want hunting to decease. Of coarse I know you don't. You love hunting just as much as I do.


Okay, where did I say that baiting should be outlawed if non-hunters disapproved? Please do not put words into my mouth. If you are unclear as to my meanings, ask me first. What I meant was that we had better be "sensitive" to the PERCEPTIONS of the non-hunter because they will always dictate whether we can hunt regardless of method.

Dan


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

BSK,
Several times you have referred to "bait piles". You said that a 1/4 to 1/3 acre foodplot is 1225 to 1600 times larger than a bait pit. 
These thoughts lead me to believe that you don't know Mich. baiting law. 2 gallon max. spread out evenly in 10' X 10' area. This makes a 1/4 to 1/3 acre foodplot 109 to 145 times larger. 2 gallons is such a small amount in a 100 sq. foot area that it just does seem worth arguing about.
A reminder to anyone who might put out salt or minerals for deer. You're a baiter too. If you have put it out in recent years at any other time than from Oct.1-Jan 1 you're an illegal baiter to boot. Or if you don't spread it out evenly in a 10' X 10' area that's illegal too.

L & O


----------



## davidshane (Feb 29, 2004)

*One Eye*

Ease up on me my friend, I didn't put words into your mouth. I addressed my questions to BSK. He was the target of my conversation. Hopefully we're still good! :lol: 

BSK,

I understand and agree with most all that you have written and would never attempt to make the arguement you spoke of. Baiting does carry a risk but is not the only somewhat biologically offensive method out there. I just can't stand the hypocricy (sorry about the spelling) of doing away with one behavior (bait hunting) when so many others behaviors are permitted. 

Poeple place baits on the ground behind their houses to attract wildlife. But no one is jumping up and down over the dangers of feeders. 

One thing I'd like to know: if no one hunted over bait ever again, would TB and CWD stop spreading and die off? Or, is there another problem out there that needs our attention that is over looked because baiting is such an easy target? Curious, that all!


----------

