# Baiting ban in U P expanding



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

stickbow shooter said:


> Is there any proof that baiting spreads CWD ? Just asking a question.


Yes there is, it could be the cause of the UP case. Interstate interstate of contaminated hay was stated as a possible cause. Prions have also been found in soil at mineral sites.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Yes there is, it could be the cause of the UP case. Interstate interstate of contaminated hay was stated as a possible cause. Prions have also been found in soil at mineral sites.


Thanks, I always here folks saying it helps spread it. I've never seen any legit proof.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

DirtySteve said:


> I think deer per square mile would play into it as well. The UP and LP are vastly different. Even the northern LP vs southern LP is very different. I think that is the crux of the issue with people against the bait ban. They did a blanket ban on the lower without considering dynamics the regions. Now they are treating the UP differently.
> 
> Personally I think they should ban baiting statewide. But I get that people are upset over regional discrepancies.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


The UP outbreak is very similar the the LP outbreak. It happens in high deer per sq. mile areas of mixed AG land. DMAPs and Deer damage permits are not issued for low deer population areas of either peninsula but have been used to identify deer with CWD in both peninsulas. 

It took 11 years for a complete ban in the LP. I’m sure the NRC will change the rules again within the next 10 years if the UP has another 118 cases of CWD pop up like it has in the LP.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

stickbow shooter said:


> Thanks, I always here folks saying it helps spread it. I've never seen any legit proof.


Please post a link on how it doesn’t. That would be an interesting read.


----------



## hear fishie fishie (Feb 26, 2015)

stickbow shooter said:


> Thanks, I always here folks saying it helps spread it. I've never seen any legit proof.


Well have you ever seen any legit proof that it doesn't???
Please post them up for peer review if you have them. 
Hear Fishie Fishie


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

hear fishie fishie said:


> Well have you ever seen any legit proof that it doesn't???
> Please post them up for peer review if you have them.
> Hear Fishie Fishie


It's a slippery slope when speculated cause/effect is in play. Vs. proven transmission.

What if the stress of being hunted can contribute to greater susceptibility?
Deer feeding less ,or feeding in areas of restricted size on poorer quality forage or switching to woody browse too soon instead of feeding more often in an expanded less concentrated manner on better seasonal food types.
All kinds of maybe what ifs...

A couple notes on bait/"natural" feed.
A gallon or so of ear corn near a run (not mine if it matters) that deer ,including an older buck left alone quite a while.
And a buck eating dried oak leaves off the ground from a downed branch mid Oct..At about twelve yards there was not mistake. And no acorns.
I've watched deer eat frost dried poplar leaves , one doe pulling a couple green oak leaves ,but never deer eating dried oak leaves till then. 

A buck in the U.P. jumping to the side and skirting bait a friend put out on one hunt.
Scent had been considered ,but the foreign scent/food was more suspect than human scent.(?)

Took a doe one year that had browsed tiny greens under pines with deep snow outside them before bedding under one.
She could have hit bait near by (again not mine if it matters ,though I've experimented in the past..) but avoided it.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

sparky18181 said:


> It’s no different than how the baiting ban started in the lower when cwd was first discovered. I’m pretty sure that if more cases are discovered in the U P then the entire U P was also have a baiting ban.


I think your post is slightly incorrect. The first ban on bait in the entire LP was after CWD was found in fenced areas in the LP. The first directive or plan was to ban bait. This was changed to a 10 mile radius from a positive diagnosed location to ban bait and the LP ban on bait was lifted.
Then after free ranging CWD last year on advise or MIDNR suggestion. NRC banned baiting and feeding of deer outside of the 10 mile radius by banning it in the entire LP.
So they are indeed not using the same direction or plan on containment of the disease. One is a CWD area the other is peninsula wide ban. Thus the main reason for complaints is the difference on the state's plan on dealing with the disease. Along with many believe it will do nothing to minimal in preventing the spread of the disease. Which has been expressed many times in other threads.

The million dollar question is it just one deer with CWD, or only one found in testing. I think 600 or 700 deer tested in the CWD area. How many were tested in the LP? You test more you should find more, especially working with/on percentages. I hope it is just one but even then, by all data showing how this disease is spread from feces, urine, blood, body fluids with direct and indirect means. There are more deer or will be more, besides it has a 18 month incubation, or not able to detect disease until the disease is further along.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

stickbow shooter said:


> Is there any proof that baiting spreads CWD ? Just asking a question.


There isnt really proof of anything with CWD.....just theories. Some scientist even think that prions may not even cause it and prions could be a result of CWD. Others dispute that. All we know is banning it might help. Banning can also help with other diseases. 

Regardless of all that most states dont allow baiting. Some that do are far more restrictive than Michigan. Alabama allows baiting but it has to be atleast 100yds from the hunter and out of direct line of sight. The state of Maine completely bans it and Maine is very much like the UP once you get away from the coast. 

I felt that allowing the 2 gallon in a 10x10 area was a great compromise on baiting in our state. The issue is nobody adheres to the 2 gallon restriction. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> I think your post is slightly incorrect. The first ban on bait in the entire LP was after CWD was found in fenced areas in the LP. The first directive or plan was to ban bait. This was changed to a 10 mile radius from a positive diagnosed location to ban bait and the LP ban on bait was lifted.
> Then after free ranging CWD last year on advise or MIDNR suggestion. NRC banned baiting and feeding of deer outside of the 10 mile radius by banning it in the entire LP.
> So they are indeed not using the same direction or plan on containment of the disease. One is a CWD area the other is peninsula wide ban. Thus the main reason for complaints is the difference on the state's plan on dealing with the disease. Along with many believe it will do nothing to minimal in preventing the spread of the disease. Which has been expressed many times in other threads.
> 
> The million dollar question is it just one deer with CWD, or only one found in testing. I think 600 or 700 deer tested in the CWD area. How many were tested in the LP? You test more you should find more, especially working with/on percentages. I hope it is just one but even then, by all data showing how this disease is spread from feces, urine, blood, body fluids with direct and indirect means. There are more deer or will be more, besides it has a 18 month incubation, or not able to detect disease until the disease is further along.


The ban started in 16 core counties and has progressed to the entire lower ban. My point is and still is that the ban on baiting in the entire lower didn’t happen over night and it s no different than what is happening in the U P now. This may only be the beginning of a total ban in the U P.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> I think your post is slightly incorrect. The first ban on bait in the entire LP was after CWD was found in fenced areas in the LP. The first directive or plan was to ban bait. This was changed to a 10 mile radius from a positive diagnosed location to ban bait and the LP ban on bait was lifted.
> Then after free ranging CWD last year on advise or MIDNR suggestion. NRC banned baiting and feeding of deer outside of the 10 mile radius by banning it in the entire LP.
> So they are indeed not using the same direction or plan on containment of the disease. One is a CWD area the other is peninsula wide ban. Thus the main reason for complaints is the difference on the state's plan on dealing with the disease. Along with many believe it will do nothing to minimal in preventing the spread of the disease. Which has been expressed many times in other threads.
> 
> The million dollar question is it just one deer with CWD, or only one found in testing. I think 600 or 700 deer tested in the CWD area. How many were tested in the LP? You test more you should find more, especially working with/on percentages. I hope it is just one but even then, by all data showing how this disease is spread from feces, urine, blood, body fluids with direct and indirect means. There are more deer or will be more, besides it has a 18 month incubation, or not able to detect disease until the disease is further along.


Roughly 1400 deer were tested last season in the U P and NO additional cases of cwd were found


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

sparky18181 said:


> The ban started in 16 core counties and has progressed to the entire lower ban. My point is and still is that the ban on baiting in the entire lower didn’t happen over night and it s no different than what is happening in the U P now. This may only be the beginning of a total ban in the U P.


You have an agreed upon plan on how to contain a disease by the state MIDNR and NRC. Then it is changed but both peninsulas are somehow different on dealing with the disease.



sparky18181 said:


> The ban started in 16 core counties and has progressed to the entire lower ban


No it was a smaller area including a buffer zones. These areas were increased buffer zone along with additional CWD area/buffer zone in the UP when a deer was tested positive in Wisconsin. Even at that time the NRC and MIDNR treated that CWD buffer zone different then the CWD buffer zone in the LP. Which they allowed baiting and feeding of deer in the CWD buffer zone in the UP but not in the LP. This was even prior to one being diagnosed in Michigans UP and prior to banning entire LP.

Same disease but dealt with differently.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

hear fishie fishie said:


> Well have you ever seen any legit proof that it doesn't???
> Please post them up for peer review if you have them.
> Hear Fishie Fishie


Hey NRC is claiming it does. Where is the proof ? All We here is hearsay on this subject. You dig your proof up. Waiting.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

sparky18181 said:


> Roughly 1400 deer were tested last season in the U P and NO additional cases of cwd were found


How many tested in LP? Twice as many, three times as many, how many were tested in LP compared to UP?


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> You have an agreed upon plan on how to contain a disease by the state MIDNR and NRC. Then it is changed but both peninsulas are somehow different on dealing with the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The bottom line is that the ban in lower didn’t happen with one swipe of the hand. It was fazed In gradually to what we have now. It is happening the same way in the U P.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> You have an agreed upon plan on how to contain a disease by the state MIDNR and NRC. Then it is changed but both peninsulas are somehow different on dealing with the disease.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


The bottom line is that the ban in lower didn’t happen with one swipe of the hand. It was fazed In gradually to what we have now. It is happening the same way in the U P.


Hunters Edge said:


> How many tested in LP? Twice as many, three times as many, how many were tested in LP compared to UP?


in the L P additional cases have been found and not in the U P so far. So what is your point.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> How many tested in LP? Twice as many, three times as many, how many were tested in LP compared to UP?


https://www.ironmountaindailynews.com/news/local-news/2018/12/no-new-cwd-found-in-up-deer/

Statewide, nearly 22,000 deer have been tested for CWD so far this year, with 18 new suspected positive deer found by the state’s disease laboratory at Michigan State University in November, Pepin said. All were from downstate, he said.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

sparky18181 said:


> Statewide, nearly 22,000 deer have been tested for CWD so far this year, with 18 new suspected positive deer found by the state’s disease laboratory at Michigan State University in November, Pepin said. All were from downstate, he said.


Is this this year or last year? Let's look at just year 2018 on how many were tested in UP and how many in the LP?

You can not compare unless you have the same number of test subjects or tests. If you look good enough you will find it?


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

sparky18181 said:


> The bottom line is that the ban in lower didn’t happen with one swipe of the hand. It was fazed In gradually to what we have now. It is happening the same way in the U P.


The point I have been making is that the MIDNR and NRC has been consistently using different regulations in containing this disease concerning baiting and feeding in the LP vs UP, from the start.

If and I mean if baiting and feeding deer does help to spread CWD than one can assume that the CWD deer diagnosed in the UP buffer zone. Is a direct result from not using the same method or regulations of banning bait and feeding of deer in the UP CWD buffer zone. Keep in mind the buffer zones in the LP baiting and feeding was banned even though no deer we're diagnosed in that area but was set up specifically for a buffer zone. The same reason a buffer zone was created in the UP when a deer was diagnosed with CWD in Wisconsin.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

It is what it is right now and if there is going to be further bans in the U P I’m sure it will come after this season if there are more positive tests.


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

Don't know the statewide numbers HE but this is a handout I got at one of the DNR meetings up here about 3 weeks ago. It says through 2018, 1,744 additional deer were tested in the U.P. CWD Surveillance area with no additional positives. So....looks like something under 10% of the statewide tests.


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

sparky18181 said:


> *It is what it is right now and if there is going to be further bans in the U P I’m sure it will come after this season if there are more positive tests.*


Very much agree. It is a done deal for this year. Let's just hope the one positive was an anomaly and they don't find any more positives. I wouldn't bet much more than a nickel or so on it though...


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Wild Thing said:


> Very much agree. It is a done deal for this year. Let's just hope the one positive was an anomaly and they don't find any more positives. I wouldn't bet much more than a nickel or so on it though...


Unless the state senators bill is passed to revoke baiting during hunting season. I’m thinking that bill is dead in the water.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

stickbow shooter said:


> Thanks, I always here folks saying it helps spread it. I've never seen any legit proof.


Cuz it doesn't exist. At least not directly for CWD. So when folks tell you there is proof, they're blowing smoke up your ass. The "proof" is, in fact, a theory based on other non-CWD studies. Good enough? Maybe, maybe not. Something I'd like to know is if it increases transmission, how much? Is it 0.001% or is it 10%?


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

sureshot006 said:


> Cuz it doesn't exist. At least not directly for CWD. So when folks tell you there is proof, they're blowing smoke up your ass. The "proof" is, in fact, a theory based on other non-CWD studies. Good enough? Maybe, maybe not. Something I'd like to know is if it increases transmission, how much? Is it 0.001% or is it 10%?


Same here.


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

sparky18181 said:


> Unless the state senators bill is passed to revoke baiting during hunting season. I’m thinking that bill is dead in the water.


Have not heard any new news on SB37 (I think that is the bill) so I'm guessing there hasn't been a lot of support for it in the legislature. Of course, the NRC just passed the newest regs which now include the U.P. so maybe it may come to the forefront again. I'm just betting that there are enough legislators in Lansing that remember what the voters said back in 1996 (Proposal G) when they gave the NRC exclusive authority to regulate (hunting, etc) using "sound scientific principles" in their management, that they probably would think twice about voting to overturn the NRC. Of course, stranger things have happened so I would never bet on that issue either.


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

Wild Thing said:


> I'm just betting that there are enough legislators in Lansing that remember what the voters said back in 1996 (Proposal G) when they gave the NRC exclusive authority to regulate (hunting, etc) using "sound scientific principles" in their management,


So would these same legislators be suspicious when the DNR picks and chooses when it wants to use the "SOUND SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES" people keep talking about?


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

miruss said:


> So would these same legislators be suspicious when the DNR picks and chooses when it wants to use the "SOUND SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES" people keep talking about?


Everyone forgets that proposal G was passed to allow the NRC to use sound scientific principle AND public input in their decisions. It's a two way street and they are supposed to balance the two not just use science. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Wild Thing said:


> Don't know the statewide numbers HE but this is a handout I got at one of the DNR meetings up here about 3 weeks ago. It says through 2018, 1,744 additional deer were tested in the U.P. CWD Surveillance area with no additional positives. So....looks like something under 10% of the statewide tests.
> 
> View attachment 414287


Thanks but this is what I found.

https://www.michigan.gov/emergingdiseases/0,4579,7-186-76711_78204-480388--,00.html

Using this data they show 2051 in the UP and 26526 in lower with a additional 4225 statewide total tested 30,751. Using the same percentage of knowing where tested gives the UP an additional 327 and LP 3898 if the same ratio tested statewide. 

Or 28,373 tested in LP and only 2378 tested in the UP. Or approximately 12.93 deer tested in the LP for every one deer tested in the UP. Keep in mind that total acreage in peninsulas are different as well but in the area majority of the testing is done acreage very similar. If I was living and or hunting in the UP I would feel more comfortable with same number of deer tested. I think it leaves a large margin of error with extremely limited deer tested, compared to the LP.

Even considering areas of low deer density many areas are high deer density from concentration from migration and yarding. Both migration and yarding are a potential threat/concern.


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

miruss said:


> *So would these same legislators be suspicious when the DNR picks and chooses when it wants to use the "SOUND SCIENTIFIC PRINCIPLES" people keep talking about?*


They may well be miruss - I don't know, but I don't believe the legislature has ever reversed by legislative authority, a regulation which has been approved by the NRC. If they have please let us know.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Hunters Edge said:


> Thanks but this is what I found.
> 
> https://www.michigan.gov/emergingdiseases/0,4579,7-186-76711_78204-480388--,00.html
> 
> ...


Once the 2018 deer harvest survey reports become available I think you will find that the ratio of deer harvested in each peninsula vs those tested will be pretty close. No doubt close enough for statistical validation.


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

DirtySteve said:


> Everyone forgets that proposal G was passed to allow the NRC to use sound scientific principle *AND public input in their decisions.* It's a two way street and they are supposed to balance the two not just use science.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


This is true DS...but it doesn't mean the NRC has to actually "listen" to what the public has to say and act accordingly. They held 4 public meetings in the U.P. for public input on the proposed CWD regs. From what I saw - probably 95%+ were opposed to a baiting ban but the NRC approved the baiting ban anyway. The only person I heard who opposed the APR's was Richard P Smith who has been opposed to them since day 1 - yet the NRC axed our APR's which we have had for the past 18 years. I'm guessing that "Sound Scientific Principles" weighed more heavily than public opinion (except in RPS's case on APR's).


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Once the 2018 deer harvest survey reports become available I think you will find that the ratio of deer harvested in each peninsula vs those tested will be pretty close. No doubt close enough for statistical validation.


Did you see the top of link (as of February 22, 2019) I would suspect the majority of 2018 harvest has been tested.

https://www.michigan.gov/emergingdiseases/0,4579,7-186-76711_78204-480388--,00.html​


----------



## Tilden Hunter (Jun 14, 2018)

stickbow shooter said:


> Is there any proof that baiting spreads CWD ? Just asking a question.


"Proof" is a hard thing to pin down, but yes it looks likely.


----------



## Tilden Hunter (Jun 14, 2018)

Waif said:


> It's a slippery slope when speculated cause/effect is in play. Vs. proven transmission.
> 
> What if the stress of being hunted can contribute to greater susceptibility?
> Deer feeding less ,or feeding in areas of restricted size on poorer quality forage or switching to woody browse too soon instead of feeding more often in an expanded less concentrated manner on better seasonal food types.
> ...


I've watched a doe and fawn 10 yards away from me sitting on a stump that happily ate thistle plants during the gun season. Remarkablly they were still green during the gun season.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

brookie1 said:


> Yup, add another 1,000 for a buck and 500 per point for an 8-10 point and 750 per point for 11 point and up. Poach an 8 point over an illegal bait pile and it's 6,000 in restitution plus mandatory jail time and a fine, 11,000 for a 12 point. Restitution and jail time is mandatory.


That will get real interesting when another hunter or neighbor believes the buck is his for whatever reason, and he gets ticked off, dumps his lunch of apples and a cob of corn, or whatever, then calls the DNR with a tip that the buck was taken with bait and it should be checked out. If it can happen, it has either been tried up here or will be; and the call can go either way. [The more dumb laws there are, the more wild the cases become.] The baiting bans are as necessary as a $3 bill or a teat on a boar.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Wild Thing said:


> They may well be miruss - I don't know, but I don't believe the legislature has ever reversed by legislative authority, a regulation which has been approved by the NRC. If they have please let us know.


_The NRC only approved general crossbow use because the legislature was going to do it, if the NRC refused to do it, and the NRC knew it. It was a Democratic led effort by a fine man from West Branch. The NRC and MUCC has hired more and better guns to fight the legislature ever since. A new one was just hired by the DNR. The NRC is passing feel good laws now because they are clueless about what science says to do and some expert from Timbukto says it sounds like a good idea._


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Still no traction for SB 0037.

http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ot...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2019-SB-0037


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Still no traction for SB 0037.
> 
> http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ot...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2019-SB-0037


Nope - No action since being referred to committee in January. Not likely to ever come up for a a vote.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

There is a story in the Iron Mountan daily about the bait ban. Says three law makers are very upset over the decision by the NRC. Mcbroom is one of them. I would post a link but it won't let me. I believe this is about to get interesting, big uproar over it.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

https://www.ironmountaindailynews.c...9/07/lawmakers-unhappy-with-deer-baiting-ban/


----------



## ninepntr (Aug 28, 2013)

ken powell said:


> Please explain why we would remove the APR in the core area in the UP, and add it in the lower in a CWD area? I believe that bucks (all bucks) spread CWD more than a bait pile. Think about it, they piss on themselves and at scrapes where more deer are attracted. They have their noses in every doe that is in heat. The antis have been saying that hunters are only after trophies and we are dealing them wild cards.


Yes, to me it doesn’t make sense?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## G20man (Sep 4, 2018)

matinc said:


> Luv 2 hunt. If all the bait that has been scattered about Michigan for how many years has not caused every deer to be completely diseased ravaged isn't proof to you then what common sense do you need. Do you not think nature has it own remedies. I'm still waiting for anyone to prove it after reading this entire post.


If every doe gets bred by those pesky bucks carrying cwd how is not every deer in the state doesn't have cwd?


----------



## anon02032020 (Oct 2, 2003)

Hmmmm g20 great point. The sad part is that unelected officials make these idiotic rules and 90 percent of the folks on this forum lack the common sense to think it through. It astounds me almost like sheep. Also reading that dnr press release Is like garbage in and garbage out and I have to pay these people. It's time the Michigan farm lobby n businesses sue the Michigan dnr. I am still waiting.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

matinc said:


> Luv 2 hunt. If all the bait that has been scattered about Michigan for how many years has not caused every deer to be completely diseased ravaged isn't proof to you then what common sense do you need. Do you not think nature has it own remedies. I'm still waiting for anyone to prove it after reading this entire post.


One would think with all the crying about the bait ban that a group of master baiters would pool their money to commision as scientific study to prove to the NRC that it’s impossible for bait to spread CWD. The NRC will need proof not anyone here plus NRC won’t fund it. Why don’t you start a go fund me page is raise the millions that a scientific study would cost? Hunters shouldn’t have to fund it because many have learn that you don’t have to bait to kill a deer.

It has been proven that feeding deer in close proximity does cause CWD to spread. So if you contend that if my friend didn’t feed the deer in his pen they would not have been destroyed.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...isease-outbreak-hits-iowa-deer-farm/16604843/


----------



## G20man (Sep 4, 2018)

matinc said:


> Hmmmm g20 great point. The sad part is that unelected officials make these idiotic rules and 90 percent of the folks on this forum lack the common sense to think it through. It astounds me almost like sheep. Also reading that dnr press release Is like garbage in and garbage out and I have to pay these people. It's time the Michigan farm lobby n businesses sue the Michigan dnr. I am still waiting.


My point to your assertion to baiting would cause every deer to have cwd was that to those fighting aprs in the name of disease prevention can't possibly agree with you.

Personally I don't give a rats $#& about either. 

Bait or no bait.
Aprs or no aprs. 

Nothing will change. 

In my unprofessional opinion herd density is probably most important. 

I'm sure someone will be along shortly with some bolded text on how we must focus on all areas of prevention expecting the regulations designed to do such a thing is the way to go when the truth is the whole issue is my side wins if things don't change.


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Wild Thing said:


> This is true DS...but it doesn't mean the NRC has to actually "listen" to what the public has to say and act accordingly. They held 4 public meetings in the U.P. for public input on the proposed CWD regs. From what I saw - probably 95%+ were opposed to a baiting ban but the NRC approved the baiting ban anyway. The only person I heard who opposed the APR's was Richard P Smith who has been opposed to them since day 1 - yet the NRC axed our APR's which we have had for the past 18 years. I'm guessing that "Sound Scientific Principles" weighed more heavily than public opinion (except in RPS's case on APR's).


WT....
I think you have hit the nail on the head.
If they found 1 instance of CWD and cancelled APR's, with the limited buffer zone between the CWD Mgt area and the NW13, they could be on the chopping block next.

….and before anybody makes the claim that I would be overjoyed to see this, please don't bother. I wouldn't. I have said that I would take APR's all day, every day not to have this disease in this state.

*But, it is exactly why I believe that planting APR's in a KNOWN CWD zone was dangerous for the state, but also for the APR advocates...it will almost assuredly promote the dispersion of those disease spreaders to the NW13.

*


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

G20man said:


> My point to your assertion to baiting would cause every deer to have cwd was that to those fighting aprs in the name of disease prevention can't possibly agree with you.
> 
> Personally I don't give a rats $#& about either.
> 
> ...


Why do you believe that herd density is most important?
The DNR said at the July NRC meeting that density is not important once CWD is present.

BTW, I bolded my comments for you.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

motdean said:


> WT....
> I think you have hit the nail on the head.
> If they found 1 instance of CWD and cancelled APR's, the NW13 could very well be next with the limited buffer zone between the CWD Mgt area and the NW13, they could be on the chopping block next.
> 
> ...


And this is my concern as well. It's not if, but when.


----------



## G20man (Sep 4, 2018)

motdean said:


> Why do you believe that herd density is most important?
> The DNR said at the July NRC meeting that density is not important once CWD is present.
> 
> BTW, I bolded my comments for you.


They have also said it is. 
They are also conducting an experiment in the core area to see if increases antlerless harvest. 
Everything leads to it might be important. 

Everything I've read about whitetail deer herd density is important. 
Disease, habitat, health, bigger bucks, etc. 

Now I'm not an expert but it sure sounds like herd density is pretty important thing far and beyond anything else.


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

G20man said:


> They have also said it is.
> They are also conducting an experiment in the core area to see if increases antlerless harvest.
> Everything leads to it might be important.
> 
> ...


When you say "herd density is pretty important thing and far beyond anything else", I presume that you mean as it relates to CWD and CWD mitigation.

However, the study in the core area isn't supposed to measure the success as it relates to disease, only what effects APR's have on herd dynamics in a disease zone.

Originally, it was supposed to determine exactly what you are saying...the effect on spread and prevalence. But when it was determined that it could not ascertain those things, the expected results were changed.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Ok let’s ask. APR were in the UP region where now CWD was found. The action is no baiting and eliminate APRs in that region. Same question to Luv....prove to to me that APR didn’t cause the CWD in that area? We already know based on WI that mature bucks have high rate of CWD. Is it possible that APR are the direct and only cause of the spread of CWD? Maybe there was CWD In very very low number of deer prior to implementing APR in the UP, and once aprs established increased the percentages of effected deer, hence spreading the disease? Prove to me it didn’t more than baiting?


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

beer and nuts said:


> Ok let’s ask. APR were in the UP region where now CWD was found. The action is no baiting and eliminate APRs in that region. Same question to Luv....prove to to me that APR didn’t cause the CWD in that area? We already know based on WI that mature bucks have high rate of CWD. Is it possible that APR are the direct and only cause of the spread of CWD? Maybe there was CWD In very very low number of deer prior to implementing APR in the UP, and once aprs established increased the percentages of effected deer, hence spreading the disease? Prove to me it didn’t more than baiting?


That and is it coincidental before found in free range APR it was found in deer farms advocating large racks and age structure to get it. Not saying it does or does not but makes it pretty similar conditions which has definitely shown prevelance and a common component.


----------



## anon02032020 (Oct 2, 2003)

Hey luvtohunt. The worthless dnr has already spent millions studying baiting and no proof exists. The best part is that qualified handicapped hunters can bait legally and spread disease according to the dnr and that by God is ok. So now handicapped hunters are allowed to discriminate against the general population and spread disease. Talk about social injustice. Would luv the dnr to defend this.


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Still waiting for proof that it doesn’t.


Same for food plots, I presume?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Luv2hunteup said:


> One would think with all the crying about the bait ban that a group of master baiters would pool their money to commision as scientific study to prove to the NRC that it’s impossible for bait to spread CWD. The NRC will need proof not anyone here plus NRC won’t fund it. Why don’t you start a go fund me page is raise the millions that a scientific study would cost? Hunters shouldn’t have to fund it because many have learn that you don’t have to bait to kill a deer.
> 
> It has been proven that feeding deer in close proximity does cause CWD to spread. So if you contend that if my friend didn’t feed the deer in his pen they would not have been destroyed.
> https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...isease-outbreak-hits-iowa-deer-farm/16604843/


You're saying deer farms are definitive proof that baiting in the wild spreads CWD at a statistically significant rate compared to no baiting? Its apples and oranges... pen deer are kept in close proximity their whole lives. Same deer, all the time. Can't disperse and aren't hunted.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> It goes back to the crossbow legalization effort, against MUCC and MBowHA. Because of the way it was conducted a group of outdoorsmen seen and expierienced, Via a very rare, honest legislator. The not so public ways decisions are made, and the interaction between the Legislature, MDNR, MNRC, and leadership of special interests. (note I did NOT say membership)
> 
> It is far different than the average sportsmen, feels, thinks, or wishes it is done. politics are filthy and disgusting, and the politics of our natural resources are no exception, worse actually because there is no accountability, we cant vote them out. The special interests represent their leadership, and the leadership of their affiliated groups. The politicians/NRC/MDNR represent the leadership of their favored special interests and affiliated groups. Scant few of them represent Joe Hunter or the resource.
> 
> We caught just a glimpse of that with the "CWD Test" and Commissioner Tracie confronting them. It is FAR deeper and more pervasive than that.





beer and nuts said:


> Ok let’s ask. APR were in the UP region where now CWD was found. The action is no baiting and eliminate APRs in that region. Same question to Luv....prove to to me that APR didn’t cause the CWD in that area? We already know based on WI that mature bucks have high rate of CWD. Is it possible that APR are the direct and only cause of the spread of CWD? Maybe there was CWD In very very low number of deer prior to implementing APR in the UP, and once aprs established increased the percentages of effected deer, hence spreading the disease? Prove to me it didn’t more than baiting?


11,800% more cases of CWD has been found in non APR DMUs than there has been found in all the Michigan APR counties combined. Not my numbers but the DNR’s.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Luv2hunteup said:


> 11,800% more cases of CWD has been found in non APR DMUs than there has been found in all the Michigan APR counties combined. Not my numbers but the DNR’s.


Regardless of stance. This is another useless statistic.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I beg to differ. When you look at CWD maps and actually where most THINK CWD is prevalent...its trophy managed areas(plus all the private deer farms, all mature deer farming!), heavily practiced APR(both private land and state), its where QDM is prevalent or has been, as well. BUT again, you didn't prove APR's is the NOT spreading it more than baiting yet....where is the studies!!!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

https://www.cdc.gov/prions/cwd/occurrence.html LOOK at the states names....all big mature deer midwest states!!! Prove me wrong with APR not being a major player in CWD spreading and even perhaps enhancing the disease!?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

beer and nuts said:


> I beg to differ. When you look at CWD maps and actually where most THINK CWD is prevalent...its trophy managed areas(plus all the private deer farms, all mature deer farming!), heavily practiced APR(both private land and state), its where QDM is prevalent or has been, as well. BUT again, you didn't prove APR's is the NOT spreading it more than baiting yet....where is the studies!!!


IMO it pops up and spreads from where the first or one of the first infected live or carcass was brought into the state and spread from there, regardless of hunting practices.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

beer and nuts said:


> https://www.cdc.gov/prions/cwd/occurrence.html LOOK at the states names....all big mature deer midwest states!!! Prove me wrong with APR not being a major player in CWD spreading and even perhaps enhancing the disease!?


I just looked up the Michigan’s stats. Not a single deer with CWD has ever been killed under an APR deer license in any MAPR DMU in Michigan. More than likely that’s why the NRC saw fit to come up with MAPR in or near known CWD DMUs. Every single hunter harvested deer with CWD positive deer in Michigan has come from DMUs without MAPR on the deer license. 

Say it out loud, 100% of CWD positive hunter harvested deer have not come from an MAPR DMU! Pretty amazing fact!


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

It appears that anti improvement crowd does not like obvious facts.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Luv2hunteup said:


> I just looked up the Michigan’s stats. Not a single deer with CWD has ever been killed under an APR deer license in any MAPR DMU in Michigan. More than likely that’s why the NRC saw fit to come up with MAPR in or near known CWD DMUs. Every single hunter harvested deer with CWD positive deer in Michigan has come from DMUs without MAPR on the deer license.
> 
> Say it out loud, 100% of CWD positive hunter harvested deer have not come from an MAPR DMU! Pretty amazing fact!


Worthless fact.

Which came first in MI? APR zones or CWD?

I'm all for APR (it actually made a huge difference where I hunt, even though it was just HC), but trying to tie some thread between CWD arrival in MI and APR is stupid.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

matinc said:


> Hey luvtohunt. The worthless dnr has already spent millions studying baiting and no proof exists. The best part is that qualified handicapped hunters can bait legally and spread disease according to the dnr and that by God is ok. So now handicapped hunters are allowed to discriminate against the general population and spread disease. Talk about social injustice. Would luv the dnr to defend this.


Well whatever you do , don't ask the D.N.R.!
Just bitch here...

How many disabled hunters (disabled by definition of holding a D.N.R. issued permit) baited in your D.M.U. last year?

Reducing baiting more than previous baiting again. Including type and length of time ,is reducing "potential" spread this coming season.

How many illegal bait sites do you estimate in the coming season?
How many disabled sites?

My perspective is that opportunity and more access allowed the disabled is worth the effort and time frame risk.
I may or may not bait this coming season but it will by regulation be brief if I do. Vs. being allowed beyond the disabled hunt.

Having been with disabled hunters besides myself ,even bait once arrived at a site does not ensure a shot should a deer visit.
But it did retain participation for some trying ..

What percentage of hunters hold such permits?
Ask the D.N.R. when you call.
They might even help you locate a disabled hunter you can host and put on a deer on a non baited site if it really bothers your concern for the deer herd.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

Hmmm...

Liberty hunt is 2 days, tags are either sex, and APRs don't apply.

In previous years in my primary DMU, only ~1/3 of hunters have an antlerless tag and baiting was 3+ months long. (I even know a few landowners who recreational fed most of the year and then hunted under the same feeder come hunting season)

I wonder which hunt has a greater likelihood of spreading disease.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Even after a good Saturday lunch I cant make up half this shet up anymore. Look out 2 days of bait


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Still waiting for proof that it doesn’t.


Didja miss my original question?

...and the data supporting food plots?


----------



## G20man (Sep 4, 2018)

motdean said:


> When you say "herd density is pretty important thing and far beyond anything else", I presume that you mean as it relates to CWD and CWD mitigation.
> 
> However, the study in the core area isn't supposed to measure the success as it relates to disease, only what effects APR's have on herd dynamics in a disease zone.
> 
> Originally, it was supposed to determine exactly what you are saying...the effect on spread and prevalence. But when it was determined that it could not ascertain those things, the expected results were changed.


No when I say herd density is important I listed a number of areas. Disease being one. 

My understanding is the study within the core area is to study effects of aprs on antlerless harvest. 
Will they look into how that effects cwd spread I have no idea and never said that was their purpose. 

My thought is they could of implemented aprs in the 5 county thumb proposal instead of the core area to study the effect they have on herd dynamics. 

I know many reference the NW12 in that aspect but imo the thumb area ( or SLP in general) have much different herd densities and habitat compared to the NW12 and could have much different results than what occured there. 

I think the past decade plus of the entire SLP antlerless quotas compared to the NW12 area shows the difference in how herd density has been perceived by the DNR between the two areas.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Luv2hunteup said:


> 11,800% more cases of CWD has been found in non APR DMUs than there has been found in all the Michigan APR counties combined. Not my numbers but the DNR’s.


That is debatable seeing sales of combo tags exceed single license sales and every combo tag second tag is MAPR which is statewide? That means a form of MAPR is indeed statewide or the state of Michigan has MAPR. The only exception is this requirement was void in CWD areas, until now.

Prior to CWD the state of Michigan did have a statewide MAPR. If you doubt me show me where you could legally shoot two spike or fork horns legally with a combo tag in Michigan prior to the implication of second tag requiring 4 points on one side prior to CWD areas? That is indeed an antler point restriction.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

motdean said:


> Didja miss my original question?
> 
> ...and the data supporting food plots?


To my knowledge the MDARD has not done any studies on agricultural practices regarding CWD. The DNR has published that food plots are an agricultural practice. It does not fall under their jurisdiction.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

motdean said:


> Didja miss my original question?
> 
> ...and the data supporting food plots?


Is there any way to stop a guy from having a garden. Nope cant be done


----------



## G20man (Sep 4, 2018)

beer and nuts said:


> I beg to differ. When you look at CWD maps and actually where most THINK CWD is prevalent...its trophy managed areas(plus all the private deer farms, all mature deer farming!), heavily practiced APR(both private land and state), its where QDM is prevalent or has been, as well. BUT again, you didn't prove APR's is the NOT spreading it more than baiting yet....where is the studies!!!


Well.....
Montcalm county looks to be our worst area. 
Montcalm county is by far not a heavily qdm managed county. 
I can think of one qdm co op. ( May be more but I only remember one) 

Yes there is some voluntary practice as there is every where. 

But the truth is those who don't practice these things outnumber those that do and our harvest data backs that up. ( Remember the saying " hunters voted with their triggers") 

I can agree many of these cwd areas are agriculture areas. 

Is that because of farming or is that because populations tend to be higher in these areas?


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

G20man said:


> Well.....
> Montcalm county looks to be our worst area.
> Montcalm county is by far not a heavily qdm managed county.
> I can think of one qdm co op. ( May be more but I only remember one)
> ...


Years of traditional management philosophy is more than likely the primary cause. Too many deer for too many years.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

G20man said:


> No when I say herd density is important I listed a number of areas. Disease being one.
> 
> My understanding is the study within the core area is to study effects of aprs on antlerless harvest.
> Will they look into how that effects cwd spread I have no idea and never said that was their purpose.
> ...


I'm not posting to promote an A.P.R. "experiment" in the thumb. It is a good point and understood though.

I do agree that conditions in the thumb might provide a better demonstration of an A.P.R.'s effect on herd number and sex ratio following an implementation of an A.P.R....PRIOR to attempted greater reductions through hunter incentive of an A.P.R.'s affect on hunter perceptions in the hopes of higher doe kills.

The state has a test coming this season to see the effect of an A.P.R. in a C.W.D. area.
That is not duplicate-able in the thumb. (Scientifically same results won't match) due to what has been done pre=A.P.R. in the C.W.D. zone.

Ideally , an A.P.R. applied the first year C.W.D. was discovered in what is now the test zone would have been better.
Better as far as being able to duplicate it in another area where C.W.D. is discovered.

Without the same background of tags,licences, permits , hunter participation from onset ,ect.
duplicity is removed.
Making the test results applicable (and more importantly for science duplicate-able) to what conditions at the onset,where?
Only the test zone itself.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Years of traditional management philosophy is more than likely the primary cause. Too many deer for too many years.


The state should have evidence of population trends.
IF they are accurate enough to show parts of the county over decades , a steady decrease will be noted.

Where numbers have increased over decades , I'm not familiar with them , and more importantly don't have data if the cause is landowners ,or the state.
I can guess though.
Being no rumors of public land where the herd is above historic numbers helps.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

Prove to me APRs are not spreading CWD? Ever wonder
why Missouri pulled their apr in every single county with CWD and certain surrounding counties?


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

beer and nuts said:


> Prove to me APRs are not spreading CWD? Ever wonder
> why Missouri pulled their apr in every single county with CWD and certain surrounding counties?


Good grief! Prove this, prove that. We all know little has been proven with CWD.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Dish7 said:


> Good grief! Prove this, prove that. We all know little has been proven with CWD
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It has been proven to generate regulation controversy(s)!
(Didn't mean to insert image into your quoted post.)


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

beer and nuts said:


> Prove to me APRs are not spreading CWD? Ever wonder
> why Missouri pulled their apr in every single county with CWD and certain surrounding counties?


Prove to me that cwd is not spread by seagulls. They can fly an poop at the same time so it's possible. What's more probable is some jughead brought a deer back from out west and the local vermin population is spreading it. Which vermin should we exterminate first? I vote seagulls, one of them pooped on my beer cooler. I am not quite over that offense just yet.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

flinchjerk said:


> Prove to me that cwd is not spread by seagulls. They can fly an poop at the same time so it's possible. What's more probable is some jughead brought a deer back from out west and the local vermin population is spreading it. Which vermin should we exterminate first? I vote seagulls, one of them pooped on my beer cooler. I am not quite over that offense just yet.


It could be vultures, Eagles, ravens or crows. Transplanting UP wolves to the LP CWD Zone was suggested at the Roscommon Deer Forum to aid in herd reduction where hunter and Wildlife Services has limited access. Prions in scat was stated as the reason given for not allowing the sportsman funded transplant to take place. It would bring wolves closer to where Michigan voters support the current ban on hunting. The wolf plan states that 400 wolves is a reasonable number for the LP.


----------



## GVDocHoliday (Sep 5, 2003)

Who really gives a sh*t anymore about any of this and who else is just ready to go hunting? Let's just get over this. It isn't changing. Let's just hunt. Do you guys even hunt? Or is it just a constant pity party? Let's talk about hunting. Who's scouting? What sign are you finding? Any new gear you're playing with this year? Trying any new methods or implementing any new tactics into your hunting this year? Mentoring any new hunters this year? Getting the kids involved beyond just planning to just sit them in a tower blind to look over a field? Etc, etc.


----------



## anon02032020 (Oct 2, 2003)

Omg wild thing. You didnt save the universe from cwd. Now I know as Paul Harvey states the rest of the story


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

matinc said:


> Omg wild thing. You didnt save the universe from cwd. Now I know as Paul Harvey states the rest of the story


I know...shame on me. But I can guarantee you it wont happen again.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Wild Thing said:


> I know...shame on me. But I can guarantee you it wont happen again.


They wouldn't have done anything. They didnt start pulling people over until years after we had cwd. But I understand why that's eating at a true stand up guy


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

beer and nuts said:


> Michigan cwd was caused by pen deer, spread by people practicing apr and qdm, because been proven in WI with high prevalence in mature bucks. How’s that for proof!?


Supporting links?


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Luv2hunteup said:


> It could be vultures, Eagles, ravens or crows. Transplanting UP wolves to the LP CWD Zone was suggested at the Roscommon Deer Forum to aid in herd reduction where hunter and Wildlife Services has limited access. Prions in scat was stated as the reason given for not allowing the sportsman funded transplant to take place. It would bring wolves closer to where Michigan voters support the current ban on hunting. The wolf plan states that 400 wolves is a reasonable number for the LP.


Lmao. Not this ridiculous idea again!! Wouldn’t happen in a million years but if it makes you feel better thinking about it. Proceed.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

GVDocHoliday said:


> Who really gives a sh*t anymore about any of this and who else is just ready to go hunting? Let's just get over this. It isn't changing. Let's just hunt. Do you guys even hunt? Or is it just a constant pity party? Let's talk about hunting. Who's scouting? What sign are you finding? Any new gear you're playing with this year? Trying any new methods or implementing any new tactics into your hunting this year? Mentoring any new hunters this year? Getting the kids involved beyond just planning to just sit them in a tower blind to look over a field? Etc, etc.


Best post I’ve seen in these forums in forever!


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

sniper said:


> Best post I’ve seen in these forums in forever!


I was thinking about hunting in a shack with bait .lol. be new to me


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

sniper said:


> Lmao. Not this ridiculous idea again!! Wouldn’t happen in a million years but if it makes you feel better thinking about it. Proceed.


Maybe you should consider getting yourself appointed to the DNRs Deer Forum. The 5 year plan deer management review is coming up. At the very least make sure your representative knows your views. The UP groups will push to help reduce the UP wolf population via transplanting to areas of the state that fall far below wolf management plan goal levels plus bring them closer to the voter base who wants them at current statewide levels. 

LP voters want wolves there is no reason why they shouldn’t enjoy them in their backyard. Those above the bridge are willing to financially to fund the process. It’s a win win for the voting public.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Maybe you should consider getting yourself appointed to the DNRs Deer Forum. The 5 year plan deer management review is coming up. At the very least make sure your representative knows your views. The UP groups will push to help reduce the UP wolf population via transplanting to areas of the state that fall far below wolf management plan goal levels plus bring them closer to the voter base who wants them at current statewide levels.
> 
> LP voters want wolves there is no reason why they shouldn’t enjoy them in their backyard. Those above the bridge are willing to financially to fund the process. It’s a win win for the voting public.


If they eat bears i'll take a few


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Maybe you should consider getting yourself appointed to the DNRs Deer Forum. The 5 year plan deer management review is coming up. At the very least make sure your representative knows your views. The UP groups will push to help reduce the UP wolf population via transplanting to areas of the state that fall far below wolf management plan goal levels plus bring them closer to the voter base who wants them at current statewide levels.
> 
> LP voters want wolves there is no reason why they shouldn’t enjoy them in their backyard. Those above the bridge are willing to financially to fund the process. It’s a win win for the voting public.


We already have one in the LP.

(It is located at the Detroit Zoo. They seem quite proud of their involvement in protecting the UP pets.)


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

motdean said:


> We already have one in the LP.
> 
> (It is located at the Detroit Zoo. They seem quite proud of their involvement in protecting the UP pets.)


I think only the UP should vote on if Lp gets them..lol


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

jr28schalm said:


> I think only the UP should vote on if Lp gets them..lol


Bring them down. Us QDMers can't kill all these doe by ourselves, LOL.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Wild Thing said:


> I know...shame on me. But I can guarantee you it wont happen again.


It's alright. You got this C.W.D. thing under control..


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Dish7 said:


> Bring them down. Us QDMers can't kill all these doe by ourselves, LOL.


Lol. Peeps in the LP, especially in the suburban areas are already freaked out about the wiley coyote population. Could you imagine the reactions with wolves in the mix. 
Sightings on playgrounds, soccer fields and golf courses? Not a chance in hell those things are making it down here!


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

sniper said:


> Lol. Peeps in the LP, especially in the suburban areas are already freaked out about the wiley coyote population. Could you imagine the reactions with wolves in the mix.
> Sightings on playgrounds, soccer fields and golf courses? Not a chance in hell those things are making it down here!
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


I hate to be the bearer of bad news. With freeze up of the Great Lakes and even the Straits at times during frigid temperatures, if they have not already crossed, it is a high odds they eventually will.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

Hunters Edge said:


> I hate to be the bearer of bad news. With freeze up of the Great Lakes and even the Straits at times during frigid temperatures, if they have not already crossed, it is a high odds they eventually will.


We are talking about the SLP not NLP.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Dish7 said:


> We are talking about the SLP not NLP.


It's just a matter of time. Especially with them being protected.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Still no traction for SB 0037.
> 
> http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(ot...g.aspx?page=GetObject&objectname=2019-SB-0037


I heard on the news that a U.P. rep is introducing a new bill to create a new U.P. NRC composed of all Yoopers to make any game and fish laws for the U.P.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I heard on the news that a U.P. rep is introducing a new bill to create a new U.P. NRC composed of all Yoopers to make any game and fish laws for the U.P.


The UP is unique, two citizens advisory committees, CWAC members, multiple sportsman's coalitions representing every Sportsman’s club and even a CWD commision. Typically speaking we are way more informed plus have more say in Sportsman related issues.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Hunters Edge said:


> I hate to be the bearer of bad news. With freeze up of the Great Lakes and even the Straits at times during frigid temperatures, if they have not already crossed, it is a high odds they eventually will.


Natural expansion I get. Planting them in and around human populated areas so they can depopulate the deer herd isn’t gonna happen and may be one of stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

sniper said:


> Natural expansion I get. Planting them in and around human populated areas so they can depopulate the deer herd isn’t gonna happen and may be one of stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


Your better than myself, I do not get why they allow or encourage natural expansion of wolves, any where in this state. I think those living and/or owning property in the UP got screwed by our DNR. My guess it's all about the money and what they received and continue to receive USFW PR funding.


----------



## anon02032020 (Oct 2, 2003)

Hey luv2 hunt I am beginning to suspect you are a dnr operative or you read and believe the non sense the dnr spews. Which is it. Btw still waiting for proof


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

sniper said:


> Natural expansion I get. Planting them in and around human populated areas so they can depopulate the deer herd isn’t gonna happen and may be one of stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


Awwww, c’mon sniper, don’t you know studies without meaningful results are the soup of the day... 

We should go ahead and try it......what could possibly go wrong?

(Yes, for anybody wondering, it is a tongue in cheek response...)


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I heard on the news that a U.P. rep is introducing a new bill to create a new U.P. NRC composed of all Yoopers to make any game and fish laws for the U.P.


Ha Ha - Wouldn't surprise me Mike. Rep Beau LaFaive was at the Western U.P. Citizens Advisory Committee meeting in Harris Thursday night and was none too happy about the recently approved NRC regs for the U.P. He did say that he and the other U.P. Legislators would be going back to Lansing this week to introduce some new legislation.


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

sniper said:


> Natural expansion I get. Planting them in and around human populated areas so they can depopulate the deer herd isn’t gonna happen and may be one of stupidest ideas I’ve ever heard.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


I'll be honest with you Sniper...it isn't a stupid idea for many Yoopers up here. I'm sure you remember the vote that took place maybe 10 years ago where all the tree huggers downstate voted to give wolves protection from management?

Well...we have 100% of the wolves in the U.P. but only 3% of the vote so it really doesn't seem reasonable to us why people who are completely unaffected by them should be able to dictate to us how they are managed. There have been several conversations (unofficial, of course) about live-trapping some wolves and passing them along to those who apparently love them so much - and I can tell you that it would be pretty simple to do (although it would be illegal).

Many trappers up here intentionally try to avoid trapping wolves in their coyote sets and still end up trapping wolves every year. So...a little tranquilizer injection...a nice comfortable box to take them for a ride in....and .... viola! The tree huggers have exactly what they voted for - their beloved wolves right in their own back yard.

Probably a good thing that most of us up here are law-abiding citizens...


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

I don't understand why anyone would think people in the Lower Peninsula would want wolves in their backyards. They voted against hunting, which would be the same results if you put deer hunting or any other type of hunting on the ballot. Here's a news flash, the majority of voters in this state don't like the thought of anything being hunted and we practice a wildly unpopular activity. It's has nothing to do with what's in their backyards. The real issue is why anything like that would ever make it to a ballot in the first place. I don't blame the voters.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Yoopers are not the only ones who think the LP can support wolves. The scientific wolf plan says the LP can support 400 wolves. I live in the LP and think it’s a great idea to transplant wolves much closer to the human population that supports their existence in Michigan. 

Study’s say that a wolf can kill up to 50 deer in a year. It’s the perfect predator for reducing deer and beaver from the landscape. The DNR is tasked with maintaining a food source for the states wolf population.


----------



## anon02032020 (Oct 2, 2003)

Another dnr or scientific spewed idea Luv 2 hunt promotes. Sorry i am not in favor of wolves below the bridge. The upper can have them all or they can wipe them all out.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Maybe you should consider getting yourself appointed to the DNRs Deer Forum. The 5 year plan deer management review is coming up. At the very least make sure your representative knows your views. The UP groups will push to help reduce the UP wolf population via transplanting to areas of the state that fall far below wolf management plan goal levels plus bring them closer to the voter base who wants them at current statewide levels.
> 
> LP voters want wolves there is no reason why they shouldn’t enjoy them in their backyard. Those above the bridge are willing to financially to fund the process. It’s a win win for the voting public.





Wild Thing said:


> I'll be honest with you Sniper...it isn't a stupid idea for many Yoopers up here. I'm sure you remember the vote that took place maybe 10 years ago where all the tree huggers downstate voted to give wolves protection from management?
> 
> Well...we have 100% of the wolves in the U.P. but only 3% of the vote so it really doesn't seem reasonable to us why people who are completely unaffected by them should be able to dictate to us how they are managed. There have been several conversations (unofficial, of course) about live-trapping some wolves and passing them along to those who apparently love them so much - and I can tell you that it would be pretty simple to do (although it would be illegal).
> 
> ...


WT I absolutely understand the political angst against the system and I’m in total agreement with the people that live and hunt up there with these animals. But 2 wrongs will never make a right!!. To say your gonna transplant a bunch of large predatory animals into possibly heavy human populated areas just to say”we’ll show you treehugger guy” is juvenile, irresponsible, and lacks common sense. It amazes me someone is even remotely considering this idea.


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

sniper said:


> WT I absolutely understand the political angst against the system and I’m in total agreement with the people that live and hunt up there with these animals. But 2 wrongs will never make a right!!. *To say your gonna transplant a bunch of large predatory animals into possibly heavy human populated areas just to say”we’ll show you treehugger guy” is juvenile, irresponsible, and lacks common sense. It amazes me someone is even remotely considering this idea*.


Hey - I'm trying to keep these folks under control up here sniper...I'm just not sure how much longer I can hold em off!


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Hey if anyone is taking wolves for a ride, will you stop by my place. I have a " few" friggen bears to give you.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Wild Thing said:


> Hey - I'm trying to keep these folks under control up here sniper...I'm just not sure how much longer I can hold em off!


LoI...Frank I should’ve known your the voice of reason. Shame on me. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

stickbow shooter said:


> Hey if anyone is taking wolves for a ride, will you stop by my place. I have a " few" friggen bears to give you.


Sounds like you, WT and Luv2 need to move to the city...where it's safe, LOL. :lol::lol::lol:


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

You got wolves, we got gangstas. I'd take the wolves any day.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

sureshot006 said:


> You got wolves, we got gangstas. I'd take the wolves any day.


I know where you guys are coming from. I'm overrun with cottontails down here in the SLP.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Dish7 said:


> I know where you guys are coming from. I'm overrun with cottontails down here in the SLP.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Luv2hunteup said:


> The UP is unique, two citizens advisory committees, CWAC members, multiple sportsman's coalitions representing every Sportsman’s club and even a CWD commision. Typically speaking we are way more informed plus have more say in Sportsman related issues.


Does you a lot of good with your constant pissin and moanin about wolves don't it?

Here's a tip.
Buy a goat.
Defend it from wolves.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

sureshot006 said:


> View attachment 416343


 :lol: Good ol Monty Python.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Wolves dont eat plants so I'll take a few


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

stickbow shooter said:


> :lol: Good ol Monty Python.


Showing your age


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

jr28schalm said:


> Showing your age


Are you just jealous that you will never be accused of actually acting yours? FYI, Some of us saw that post that disappeared this morning.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

sniper said:


> WT I absolutely understand the political angst against the system and I’m in total agreement with the people that live and hunt up there with these animals. But 2 wrongs will never make a right!!. To say your gonna transplant a bunch of large predatory animals into possibly heavy human populated areas just to say”we’ll show you treehugger guy” is juvenile, irresponsible, and lacks common sense. It amazes me someone is even remotely considering this idea.


Do you honestly believe that the UP does not have heavily populated areas with wolves? Are five kids playing in a backyard in the UP of less value than 5 kids in the LP. Michigan is one state. Sharing is caring, the Wolf Plan only calls for 400 wolves in the LP.


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Do you honestly believe that the UP does not have heavily populated areas with wolves? Are five kids playing in a backyard in the UP of less value than 5 kids in the LP. Michigan is one state. Sharing is caring, the Wolf Plan only calls for 400 wolves in the LP.


 Some folks view the world with one eye closed while looking through a TP tube. Not much you can do about that Luv.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

ridgewalker said:


> That will get real interesting when another hunter or neighbor believes the buck is his for whatever reason, and he gets ticked off, dumps his lunch of apples and a cob of corn, or whatever, then calls the DNR with a tip that the buck was taken with bait and it should be checked out. If it can happen, it has either been tried up here or will be; and the call can go either way. [The more dumb laws there are, the more wild the cases become.] The baiting bans are as necessary as a $3 bill or a teat on a boar.


That's your argument against the bait ban?


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Thoughts on bait vs. food plots?

What if the DNR biologists say that baiting is definitely worse, but food plots also congregate deer unnaturally and are worse than doing nothing.

Would you still plot *if CWD came to your neck of the woods*?

and to be clear, I am only talking about if it shows up in the CWD management zone....

It puts a lot of food plotters that are against baiting in a real dilemma.

I wonder how many people will try to justify it, or even ignore the question.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

motdean said:


> Thoughts on bait vs. food plots?
> 
> What if the DNR biologists say that baiting is definitely worse, but food plots also congregate deer unnaturally and are worse than doing nothing.
> 
> ...


Is it coincidence that CWD seems to be found in areas of Ag? Probably? But then again what if ag actually makes deer roam more (think wood lot to wood lot)?

Disclaimer I am ignorant to where the worst of it happens to be in other states. I think it starts with a single infection and spreads outward from there, but could it be possible that areas of Ag are more likely to cause an outbreak that takes off?


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

It’s funny how some use the imaginary term “what if” and the DNR in the same sentence. The DNR probably puts more food plots plus does more habitat manipulation than all of Michigan deer hunters combined. There is no doubt that the DNR fully supports food plots. No what if about it.


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Some in a disease zone are already facing tha question...or not.

and, it depends on who you talk to in the DNR.

The feedback that I received from the biologist stated just what I said...*that they are discouraged in a disease zone.*

The "what if" still stands because it is pertinent to those already hunting in a disease zone and it is a more of what should I be doing.

I sincerely believe that some are simply afraid of the answer.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Do you honestly believe that the UP does not have heavily populated areas with wolves? Are five kids playing in a backyard in the UP of less value than 5 kids in the LP. Michigan is one state. Sharing is caring, the Wolf Plan only calls for 400 wolves in the LP.


The original gist of this ridiculous idea was you wanting to plant wolves in the original core area of cwd which happens to be in and around the outskirts of Lansing. This will not ever happen no matter how you want twist your moral population angle. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

motdean said:


> Some in a disease zone are already facing tha question...or not.
> 
> and, it depends on who you talk to in the DNR.
> 
> ...


I dont give a rat's a$$, been growing plants I wasnt suppose to grow for 25 years .Test the meat


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

flinchjerk said:


> Some folks view the world with one eye closed while looking through a TP tube. Not much you can do about that Luv.


Apparently you were buying time on the toilet and ran out of tp when you posted this. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Luv2hunteup said:


> It’s funny how some use the imaginary term “what if” and the DNR in the same sentence. The DNR probably puts more food plots plus does more habitat manipulation than all of Michigan deer hunters combined. There is no doubt that the DNR fully supports food plots. No what if about it.


Now here’s a post that has facts and legitimacy to it. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

motdean said:


> I sincerely believe that some are simply afraid of the answer.


I'm not in a disease zone yet but I'll bite, lol. 
If food plots were made illegal, it's over...simple as that. I'm not breaking the law to kill a deer. Cast a shadow on one deer kill and all past success becomes instantly shaded. Maybe I'm not the right person to comment because I could care less about baiting. I don't do it or care if someone else does.
If you're asking would I stop if it wasn't made illegal?...no, I would not. I have about a 1.5 acre clover plot. Very lush normally. With a very high deer density, at any one time, there may be five or six deer (on the high end) feeding there. Not very unnatural IMO. Why so few? Because my neighbors have plots and their neighbors have plots. Tons of ag and plenty of natural browse. Good habitat, no need to congregate. JMO.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Luv2hunteup said:


> It’s funny how some use the imaginary term “what if” and the DNR in the same sentence. The DNR probably puts more food plots plus does more habitat manipulation than all of Michigan deer hunters combined. There is no doubt that the DNR fully supports food plots. No what if about it.


Lots of which are hunter/fisherman funded.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Next you guys will be talking about banning clear cuts. Sound like a bunch of cali transplants


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Dish7 said:


> I'm not in a disease zone yet but I'll bite, lol.
> If food plots were made illegal, it's over...simple as that. *I'm not breaking the law to kill a deer. Cast a shadow on one deer kill and all past success becomes instantly shaded.* Maybe I'm not the right person to comment because I could care less about baiting. I don't do it or care if someone else does.
> If you're asking would I stop if it wasn't made illegal?...no, I would not. I have about a 1.5 acre clover plot. Very lush normally. With a very high deer density, at any one time, there may be five or six deer (on the high end) feeding there. Not very unnatural IMO. Why so few? Because my neighbors have plots and their neighbors have plots. Tons of ag and plenty of natural browse. Good habitat, no need to congregate. JMO.


Fair enough. I have to give you props regarding what I bolded in your original message. 

However, do you not believe that as many people that bait in the UP would also disperse the fewer deer that they have there across more areas?

(I am not defending the UP baiters, nor trying to get you in a "gotcha" moment, but do wonder if you see the potential similarities).


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

motdean said:


> Fair enough. I have to give you props regarding what I bolded in your original message.
> 
> However, do you not believe that as many people that bait in the UP would also disperse the fewer deer that they have there across more areas?
> 
> (I am not defending the UP baiters, nor trying to get you in a "gotcha" moment, but do wonder if you see the potential similarities).


 Yes, the similarities are that deer are going to eat. And eat together because they are extremely social, opportunistic animals. While I know it is considered "best available science", I don't believe the bait ban is more than a tiny drop in the bucket concerning disease spread. I'm extremely skeptical that the ban will have any effect, good or bad. But for now at least, it's the law. JMO.


----------



## Tilden Hunter (Jun 14, 2018)

Dish7 said:


> I know where you guys are coming from. I'm overrun with cottontails down here in the SLP.


I've never seen a cottontail in the wild up here, but they are abundant inside the small towns.


----------



## anon02032020 (Oct 2, 2003)

Luv 2 hunt I think all 400 wolves should be put on your land. At 50 deer kill per year per wolf you could eliminate 800 square miles of deer based on 25 deer per square mile. Your wisdom astounds me


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Wild Thing said:


> Apples & Oranges??


Just an example of what you don't have freedom to do on your own property. It's not so far fetched.


----------



## Rainman68 (Apr 29, 2011)

Luv2hunteup said:


> It’s funny how some use the imaginary term “what if” and the DNR in the same sentence. The DNR *probably* puts more food plots plus does more habitat manipulation than all of Michigan deer hunters combined. There is no doubt that the DNR fully supports food plots. No what if about it.


I'll agree with "probably" on more acreage of plots and habitat as a whole for all species, but definitely not more plots specific to deer. Duck and pheasant habitat is "probably" 90% of the habitat manipulation aimed at a specific species, others do benefit though.

Your backyard has most of the plots for cervids. The overgrown rye plots for elk have little drawing effect on deer in my opinion. In most of these areas you are lucky to even see a deer.


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Wild Thing said:


> You are trying to compare Apples & Oranges IMO...and frankly, I'm getting a little tired about hearing people make their case that food plots are the same as a bait pile. Here are my thoughts on it.
> 
> First of all, I am now in a CWD zone (U.P.) as they allegedly found a single deer last year in my township. Has the DNR outlawed farming? Nope - there are several farms of 200 - 600+ acres in this same township who are growing Alfalfa Hay, corn, cabbage and sugar beets which they grow to sell to deer hunters to use for baiting and winter feeding of deer - even though they have instituted a baiting ban in the Core CWD zone where these farms are located. Would I stop planting food plots while these farmers are allowed to grow deer bait. Ha Ha - I don't think so.
> 
> ...


WT,

A couple of things. I don't believe that bait and food plots are the same. 

I believe that my question was more voluntary, based on feedback from the DNR, not a regulation. I don't believe that the NRC has a say in food plots on a regulatory basis.

It looks like you answered my question.

As far as your comments about the ability of the government having a say in your land use, it does not come down to whether I believe that they should be able to. I don't believe that the US government should be able to. However, they actually do. It is called Eminent Domain. I have personal experience in that area. And while you say that they must compensate the landowner, I can tell you that there is a huge difference between what the government thinks your property is worth and what you do.

The Eminent Domain concept is it pertains to food plots and baiting would be interesting. Not one that I would pursue in any way, shape, or form, but interesting, nonetheless.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Even the definition of bait would include food plots purpose.

"bait
/bāt/


1.
food used to entice fish or other animals as prey."​
That being said the state at this present time does not see or identify food plots as bait. They do acknowledge it does entice or attract deer and other wildlife as prey.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

jr28schalm said:


> Guess the wife better get over her spinach fetish and get use to kale if they could even ban plots. HOBBY FARMER


I hear rutabaga grows good in sand? They are delicious by themselves or in a venison/rutabaga pasties.


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

buckguts1970 said:


> You have to look no farther than Alaskan Bush people to see what them 5 kids from the u.p would look like.
> 
> Sent from my RCT6513W87 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Had too look that one up.


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

sniper said:


> His response to my post was creepy and pointless and wasn’t worth a rebuttal. But your response is funny stuff! Lol
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


Point is that the dingo very seldom actually eats yo baby. Folks have been living with them for eons. It only takes that one time to sour you on all dingo kind however. FWIW the rebuttal is the best part, it tastes just like ham if prepared properly.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Hunters Edge said:


> I hear rutabaga grows good in sand? They are delicious by themselves or in a venison/rutabaga pasties.


Never got in a fight over possession of a rutabaga...

Do recall a particularly tasty one shared a very long time ago at an artisan well where a school house once existed , during a break in the wee hours of the night on my first **** hunt...

It's not a proper pastie without some diced bega's though!


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

motdean said:


> Thoughts on bait vs. food plots?
> 
> What if the DNR biologists say that baiting is definitely worse, but food plots also congregate deer unnaturally and are worse than doing nothing.
> 
> ...


C.W.D. is where I plot.
What the D.N.R. suggests vs declare as fact with supporting evidence would be weighed in deciding plot or don't...

I justify my plot by micro vision first. That's where I start on deer issues as first hand observation trumps (in my area,in my opinion) opinion from beyond the area that does not observe what I do.

Before I (And sorry about the I,I,I,I, substitute some one/anyone if that helps) put in a plot ;observation revealed deer feeding"habit" per time of year and locale.

A light habitat as far as production of browse ,with ag. anchoring distant ends of estimated range of deer.
THE trend had deer browsing in a couple particular homesteads yards steady.
Now , my opinion has long been that deer do not crave a tidy lawn and browse it's grass. But do much forbs scattered in one.Regardless , enough deer have been noted browsing in yards elsewhere to know it was not random chance.

When paths were mowed on the parcels I own the deer browsed them.
So far what has been changed?

When a plot was added it gave deer on the to and fro between ag fields a stop.
And the "locals" a browse spot.
Usually one doe and her offspring until she allows other deer to socialize again as fawn is mobile and getting near weaned.

Deer visit. The less dominant hang around sometimes(with exception of whatever doe sets up a fawning site though she dominates others..) but the majority are passing through.
While a yearling buck usually sets up shop , the older ones are running the ag. to ag. bigger route with bedding dependent on multiple variables beyond cover.

Not plotting would just be going back to deer browsing mowed trails (I'll defend those trails for wheelchair use , If the state wants to kill the forbs they can. Just keep it organic.)

Deer would continue to hit those couple homesteads yards.
And an apple tree near one.
Less other browse would exist. But as long as more deer were removed to balance against available browse being reduced (the macro is other plots in range) hunting goes on.

Too much browse is not a problem for the local herd.
Too little is a problem for the herd.
Reducing it to where my personal opinion would have them be with no plots would make for fewer deer for sure.
With no ag. , psheew, a half dozen deer sighted would be cause for excitement if winter browse was the deciding factor in population.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Wild Thing said:


> Apples & Oranges??


Yes no shet, the plant was banned and still is on the fed level.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

jr28schalm said:


> Yes no shet, the plant was banned and still is on the fed level.


Planting for the purpose of feeding/attracting deer sounds easy to ban, IF it were proven helpful to slow CWD. They wouldn't be telling you that you can't have a garden, just couldnt have it accessible to deer. Point is, the whole "Its my land I can do what I want" is kinda naive.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> Planting for the purpose of feeding/attracting deer sounds easy to ban, IF it were proven helpful to slow CWD. They wouldn't be telling you that you can't have a garden, just couldnt have it accessible to deer. Point is, the whole "Its my land I can do what I want" is kinda naive.


Not at all, farmers will line up to sue the state. I am done with the non land owners bitching about food plots


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

jr28schalm said:


> Not at all, farmers will line up to sue the state


How? If they're legitimately not growing for the purpose of attracting deer it would be okay.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Where do you draw the line? Oak, apple, beech or pear trees? A favorite neighborhood snack are hostas. Would cedar or hemlock trees that have been planted deer have to be removed? Banning deer food with roots attached to the ground will never be banned now matter how many tears the master baiters shed.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Where do you draw the line? Oak, apple, beech or pear trees? A favorite neighborhood snack are hostas. Would cedar or hemlock trees that have been planted deer have to be removed? Banning deer food with roots attached to the ground will never be banned now matter how many tears the master baiters shed.


I agree for the most part. I can see a possibility of clover fields and other greens going away though IF (big if) it was deemed harmful. Stuff that is clearly for the sole purpose of attracting deer.

It would be fun to listen to the whining of the holier than thou at that point. Then you could "learn how to hunt" lmao


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

sureshot006 said:


> I agree for the most part. I can see a possibility of clover fields and other greens going away though IF (big if) it was deemed harmful. Stuff that is clearly for the sole purpose of attracting deer.
> 
> It would be fun to listen to the whining of the holier than thou at that point. Then you could "learn how to hunt" lmao


There goes clover and buckwheat honey market.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Luv2hunteup said:


> There goes clover and buckwheat honey market.


Home grown clover seeds?


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

sureshot006 said:


> I agree for the most part. I can see a possibility of clover fields and other greens going away though IF (big if) it was deemed harmful. Stuff that is clearly for the sole purpose of attracting deer.


What if you have a couple bee hives on that clover field?

What if that field gets cut and baled?

We've got about 10 acres of hay fields on our property that are a mix of various forbs and grasses - it's been cut and baled for as long as I can remember. I don't own cattle or horses so the hay does me no good but if it goes fallow the golden rod takes over and wreaks havoc on my allergies. If allowed to go fallow for several years, it'd be early successional habitat - a deer favorite.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

jr28schalm said:


> Not at all, farmers will line up to sue the state. I am done with the non land owners bitching about food plots


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Luv2hunteup said:


> There goes clover and buckwheat honey market.


Right. Any ole loophole will do to attempt to maintain innocence.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

flinchjerk said:


> I have been anti bait for a long time, no apologies. If bait was actually used legally (2gals my ass) and the arrow went into the quiver when it legally should, I would likely have a far different opinion however. AND NO I am not saying all who bait are blob shooters, but many of them are. You cannot tell me someone that has a full and bright backdrop of yellow corn and white beets 10 feet from the base of their tree is not up to that potential thought at minimum. I have sat late and actually heard it happen way more than once. Unfortunately the C.O's travel at glacial speed compared to the offenders. Now that practice will be way easier to nip in the bud.


I grantee that tons more deer have been poached without the use of bait. By your logic, perhaps we should ban every other method of hunting then that does not involve baiting???


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Hunters Edge said:


> I believe we all lost. Especially with regulations with no scientific evidence. It has been shown it will not be the last either.
> 
> The hypocrisy is for those like yourself who believe hunting over food plots, apple trees, oak trees or runways leading to or from these areas differ than using bait defined in the MIDNR hunting and trapping guide.
> 
> Another reason we all lose is the decrease of hunters because of the ban. Just another nail in the coffin, which we can not blame the antis for, but other hunters. IMO


The people that want baiting banned in Michigan don't care about retention of hunter numbers. They only seem to care about their own selfish advantages that they might gain. Sad.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

flinchjerk said:


> How many times have you wandered across a true 2 gallon bait pile? I can count the times I have actually seen that on one hand and still have enough fingers left over to open a barley soda.


Every time that I stepped out of my blind (actually did not wander across) or went to one of the blinds used by disabled hunters on my land. Giving us just two weekends is nothing more than a slap in the face. How many of you would limit your hunting to two weeks a year?


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

Groundsize said:


> When are they going to do DNA testing on the CWD positive to confirm the area?


I'd be shocked if they did it since it was shot on a farmers land that has been at war with deer for years and has very high political connections.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

The wild berries are thick this year in this area so we can always shoot some good pictures of bear around our blinds.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

flinchjerk said:


> The law is not on your side. So sorry, oops that's a lie. I am so not sorry. I am a bit sorry you cannot see the flaws in your own logic however. I really doubt your ban on oak trees will get very far, but please feel free to give it a whirl.
> 
> For what it's worth I truly did enjoy cutting off the runway leading to them massive bait piles though. Yessir I was that guy shooting the second, third, or even the fourth buck that left the bedding area on the way to your rotten pile of produce. If you saw the others it was because I let them little buggars walk by unharmed. You are welcome. If you didn't see them it is probably because it was too dark by the time they got there.


You're a used to be bait hunter too.


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

mbrewer said:


> You're a used to be bait hunter too.


Yep, then I learned how to hunt. Now I take nicer antlers too. WIN WIN


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I grantee that tons more deer have been poached without the use of bait. By your logic, perhaps we should ban every other method of hunting then that does not involve baiting???


Whatever you think, neither of us has proof. The law is on the right track now. That is all that matters.


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

Trophy Specialist said:


> The people that want baiting banned in Michigan don't care about retention of hunter numbers. They only seem to care about their own selfish advantages that they might gain. Sad.



All I hear are excuses to keep doing what you want to do. Selfish lives in every mirror. Big difference is that the law finally landed on my side and you do not like it. Boo hoo


----------



## buckguts1970 (Dec 7, 2012)

flinchjerk said:


> All I hear are excuses to keep doing what you want to do. Selfish lives in every mirror. Big difference is that the law finally landed on my side and you do not like it. Boo hoo


Damn flinch you seem sassy today, you off the meds. #loveit

Sent from my SM-G965U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

buckguts1970 said:


> Damn flinch you seem sassy today, you off the meds. #loveit
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Went for a 3.4 mile swim today, it was invigorating. Head is as clear as it gets, no meds needed.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

flinchjerk said:


> Went for a 3.4 mile swim today, it was invigorating. Head is as clear as it gets, no meds needed.


Welcome to the club


----------



## buckguts1970 (Dec 7, 2012)

flinchjerk said:


> Went for a 3.4 mile swim today, it was invigorating. Head is as clear as it gets, no meds needed.


Hate to see ya after a 5 mile swim lol.

Sent from my SM-G965U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

jr28schalm said:


> Welcome to the club


Sure is nice swimming in real water. Gonna have to get me a wet suit before this fall or if the rains keep chilling the damned water off. The endless pool was ok but swimming with the panfish is so much nicer.  

If you are talking about the Sloe Gin and Squirt club, I was already a member in very good standing.


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

buckguts1970 said:


> Hate to see ya after a 5 mile swim lol.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G965U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app



No worries, not quite up to that yet.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Trophy Specialist said:


> If it weren't for deer hunting I and every other deer hunter would not plant food plots. And yes I do also enjoy all the fringe benefits of my plots outside of deer attraction, but....


What do you mean? Everyone plants food plots to attract rabbits, didnt you know? Thick brush and piles are out, 10 acre plots of clover is the new thing in small game hunting.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)




----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

stickbow shooter said:


> View attachment 416725


Why are you puffin? I thought that was Juniors bag.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

flinchjerk said:


> All I hear are excuses to keep doing what you want to do. Selfish lives in every mirror. Big difference is that the law finally landed on my side and you do not like it. Boo hoo


Very immature post.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

flinchjerk said:


> Why are you puffin? I thought that was Juniors bag.


Oh , Puffin! vs puffing I get it....:jam-nana:


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Have you ever witnessed that buck breeding a doe and observed the snot and spit coming from
His mouth as he s going to town. Gotta be a lot of disease spreading going on there. Not to mention the fawn whose mother licks it clean. Isn’t that transmitting the disease too. Where does it all end. We need to ban reproducing to slow down the spread


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

Waif said:


> Oh , Puffin! vs puffing I get it....:jam-nana:


And I pulled it off in just one line. Pretty neat eh?


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Very immature post.


Is this better? https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-350-79136_79772_79773_83479---,00.html


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Very immature post.


I'm surprised the response wasnt "I know you are but what am i?"


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

sureshot006 said:


> I'm surprised the response wasnt "I know you are but what am i?"


I'd be lyin if I said that did not cross my mind. I managed to resist though.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

flinchjerk said:


> I'd be lyin if I said that did not cross my mind. I managed to resist though.


Next up, sticks and stones... lol


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

mbrewer said:


> You took that in a different direction than I thought you would. Why the exception to the DNR's reliance on best science available was the point. The current best science available concludes that baiting is a risk multiplier that should be restricted because it can be. Same for APRs, a risk multiplier that should be restricted because it can be. Are you or the DNR assigning the same priority to both multipliers or not?


OK, sorry. I thought it was pretty obvious that the NRC went with the best science (baiting ban) over the vast majority of objections to it - perhaps because I was at the meeting and you were not. I do believe though that had they gone with the absolute best scientific principles, they would have banned baiting statewide rather than just a small core area around the 1 CWD positive - especially since it was already known prior to the July NRC meeting that at least 2 of the 35 deer which had been GPS collared in the CWD zone in February, had already migrated outside of the Core CWD area. That tells me that the baiting ban Core Zone is much too small which is what I stated at the Listening Session just prior to the NRC meeting.

The exception to best science I believe was premature when they abolished the APR's which we have enjoyed here since 2001. As I mentioned, only Richard P. Smith spoke in support of abolishing the APR's and, as we all know, he has been doing that for the past 18 years. The reason that i believe this action was premature are several:

Other than RPS commenting on it at the last of 4 listening sessions, there was virtually no discussion of it (the APR ban) by the DNR at any of those meetings and there was virtually no mention of it even being on the table in any of the printed handout materials that the DNR distributed as their "CWD Baiting Ban Proposal" info. Most people I have talked to feel like we were blind-sided.

I also believe it was at least a year premature since, to date, there has been only 1 deer that has tested positive in the entire U.P. - a doe, and the origin of that deer remains unknown for certain.

I admit that I am not knowledgeable enough on the issue to know just exactly how much higher the CWD prevalence rate is in bucks vs does. From the data that I have seen - it doesn't appear to be that much and I am quite confident that far more does have been tested than bucks.

I have never made any bones about it that in my experience, APR's have been a huge game changer in the quality of hunting in my DMU. Further, there is an extremely high level of support of the APR regs by both landowners in the area as well as non-landowner hunters. The second vote after the first 5 years of MAPR regs came out with higher support (78%) than the first vote which I believe was around 74%. It is my understanding that the DNR U.P. Deer Camp Surveys have concluded that our DMU probably has the very highest rate of hunter satisfaction than any other DMU in the U.P. and at least one other person who was heavily involved in the QDM process told me that we have the highest hunter retention rate as well. I believe these very positive experiences should have been strongly considered prior to abolishing the APR's.

Having said that, if I honestly believed that CWD was a serious issue here...or was even on the brink of being a serious issue, I would likely support abolishing our APR's in favor of keeping our deer herd in good health, if there was any evidence that doing so would help reduce the spread of the disease. Unfortunately, I have not been convinced of either at this point. There have been some 1,800 deer tested since the original CWD positive with no additional positives, and the genetic testing of the suspect deer has still not been completed so that we have even the slightest confidence that this particular deer was even remotely related to any other deer in Dickinson County.


----------



## Groundsize (Aug 29, 2006)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I'd be shocked if they did it since it was shot on a farmers land that has been at war with deer for years and has very high political connections.


Proof?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Wild Thing said:


> OK, sorry. I thought it was pretty obvious that the NRC went with the best science (baiting ban) over the vast majority of objections to it - perhaps because I was at the meeting and you were not. I do believe though that had they gone with the absolute best scientific principles, they would have banned baiting statewide rather than just a small core area around the 1 CWD positive - especially since it was already known prior to the July NRC meeting that at least 2 of the 35 deer which had been GPS collared in the CWD zone in February, had already migrated outside of the Core CWD area. That tells me that the baiting ban Core Zone is much too small which is what I stated at the Listening Session just prior to the NRC meeting.
> 
> The exception to best science I believe was premature when they abolished the APR's which we have enjoyed here since 2001. As I mentioned, only Richard P. Smith spoke in support of abolishing the APR's and, as we all know, he has been doing that for the past 18 years. The reason that i believe this action was premature are several:
> 
> ...


Do you think your neighbors will stick with voluntary APR? Or do you have enough of the any thing legal hunters in the area to make a big impact? I know it isnt going to be representative of all landowners in the region but curious if you think it'll affect you directly.


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

Unfortunately, 2 of my nearest neighbors were among the minority opposed to APR's and I'm pretty sure they still are...


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Wild Thing said:


> Unfortunately, 2 of my nearest neighbors were among the minority opposed to APR's and I'm pretty sure they still are...


That stinks.

We had/have neighbors that would tell you to your face they only shot bucks with x on a side. Spunded good until you saw them driving out with their spike.


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Wild Thing said:


> OK, sorry. I thought it was pretty obvious that the NRC went with the best science (baiting ban) over the vast majority of objections to it - perhaps because I was at the meeting and you were not. I do believe though that had they gone with the absolute best scientific principles, they would have banned baiting statewide rather than just a small core area around the 1 CWD positive - especially since it was already known prior to the July NRC meeting that at least 2 of the 35 deer which had been GPS collared in the CWD zone in February, had already migrated outside of the Core CWD area. That tells me that the baiting ban Core Zone is much too small which is what I stated at the Listening Session just prior to the NRC meeting.
> 
> The exception to best science I believe was premature when they abolished the APR's which we have enjoyed here since 2001. As I mentioned, only Richard P. Smith spoke in support of abolishing the APR's and, as we all know, he has been doing that for the past 18 years. The reason that i believe this action was premature are several:
> 
> ...



WT,

You do a good job of explaining yourself and why you take the position that you do.
For the two deer that migrated out of the core area, what were their sexes, if you know?


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

motdean said:


> WT,
> 
> You do a good job of explaining yourself and why you take the position that you do.
> For the two deer that migrated out of the core area, what were their sexes, if you know?


Thanks motdean. One buck and one doe. This was as of several weeks ago. Not sure if others have made it outside of the Core area by now or not.

Those that were trapped and collared on my property seem to be home-bodies. I've got some 250 trail cam photos of them.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Wild Thing said:


> Unfortunately, 2 of my nearest neighbors were among the minority opposed to APR's and I'm pretty sure they still are...


Did they remove the restrictions on the 2nd tag to?.


----------



## hear fishie fishie (Feb 26, 2015)

Wild Thing said:


> Thanks motdean. One buck and one doe. This was as of several weeks ago. Not sure if others have made it outside of the Core area by now or not.
> 
> Those that were trapped and collared on my property seem to be home-bodies. I've got some 250 trail cam photos of them.
> 
> ...


Wild Thing
With what you provide in food and habitat, why would they want to leave?
Plus with your past doe harvest you made some "holes" such that even some of your sparkies didn't have to disperse.
Less reason to be concerned about the near neighbors antler requirements.
FOOD+ WATER + COVER = HOME for the deer.
Hope your recovery is progressing well.
Hear Fishie Fishie


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

jr28schalm said:


> Did they remove the restrictions on the 2nd tag to?.


Good question.


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

jr28schalm said:


> Did they remove the restrictions on the 2nd tag to?.





stickbow shooter said:


> Good question.


I don't know this for sure yet Jr but it is on my "to-do" list to check into. I will either be going to our local DNR field office or maybe calling Terry Minzey (U.P. Supervisor) within the next day or two.

Will let you know.


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

hear fishie fishie said:


> Wild Thing
> With what you provide in food and habitat, why would they want to leave?
> Plus with your past doe harvest you made some "holes" such that even some of your sparkies didn't have to disperse.
> Less reason to be concerned about the near neighbors antler requirements.
> ...


Thanks fishie. Still have a ways to go on the recovery....but I am getting better (and less pain) every day.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

Hunters Edge said:


> The hypocrisy is for those like yourself* who believe hunting over food plots, apple trees, oak trees or runways leading to or from these areas differ than using bait *defined in the MIDNR hunting and trapping guide.


These people/hunters whether for or against baiting, *did not ban bait.*


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

Wild Thing said:


> I do believe though *that had they gone with the absolute best scientific principles, they would have banned baiting statewide rather than just a small core area *around the 1 CWD positive -


This has been my thought on this since day one (as an internet biologists, lol). If the MDNR is serious about "best available science" and slowing the spread, why wait? The core area should have been the entire state...yesterday. Anything "believed" to help goes into effect statewide immediately instead of closing the barn door after the horse is out. Rip the band-aid off and let everyone complain all at once and get back to hunting...whatever the regs are. JMO.


----------



## Tilden Hunter (Jun 14, 2018)

mbrewer said:


> So ban bait and then some but leave APRs alone because they're popular. And you're not convinced the evidence sufficient enough to support banning bait is sufficient to support removing APRs?
> 
> I'm certain your position is more nuanced than my summary but hopefully, boiling it down ought to help expose the contradiction.
> 
> IMO Bait and APRs both ought to be yesterday's news. Either both or neither.


That's similar to my solution to all of Michigan's deer hunting problems: Single buck tag, no APRs, no baiting, one season all weapons while still respecting the restricted zone.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Wild Thing said:


> Actually MB...I'm a little burned out on this thread so think what you like. You and I have had differing opinions on APR's since day 1 - no secret there. IMO baiting should have been banned statewide many, many years ago, before CWD ever entered our landscape.


The rap line will be burned out when I get done..lol


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

jr28schalm said:


> The rap line will be burned out when I get done..lol


I'm surprised you're not burned out yourself! 

(Just wanted to be the last marijuana joke of the day)


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

jr28schalm said:


> The rap line will be burned out when I get done..lol


Get in line bubba. I'll be wandering public land every spare minute I have just looking for bait. It's my new mission in life. Today's posts have really inspired me. :evilsmile


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

Tilden Hunter said:


> That's similar to my solution to all of Michigan's deer hunting problems: Single buck tag, no APRs, no baiting, one season all weapons while still respecting the restricted zone.


Michigan's largest problem has already been fixed. The rest will tend to itself if the bait ban is truly enforced with more than a wink and a nod.


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

I haven't baited in years, but I can't believe a bait ban will have any appreciable effect on the spread of any disease in deer. Deer are naturally social animals. They have plenty of nose to nose contact even when they aren't feeding. Another thought.. An apple tree creates a natural "bait pile" without human intervention. Deer WILL congregate around the best food source in their area. Always. Can a bait pile spread disease? Logic says it can, but will it spread disease faster than other natural congregation areas? Will a baiting ban stop the spread of disease? I think not..


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

sureshot006 said:


> Read it again. Slower this time.
> 
> Not doing nothing wrong = doing wrong


So which of my ex's did you meet?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Waif said:


> So which of my ex's did you meet?


The one with a single tooth left in her head.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

sureshot006 said:


> The one with a single tooth left in her head.


Bet you're still wrong/guilty/suspicious/ect. too...:tsk:


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

sureshot006 said:


> I'm surprised you're not burned out yourself!
> 
> (Just wanted to be the last marijuana joke of the day)


I was throwing up a softball for guys that have to read posts slower. If you met me you wouldnt know my med preferences unless I told you my screen name..#proburner.lol


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Waif said:


> Bet you're still wrong/guilty/suspicious/ect. too...:tsk:


Your just like your mom or dad. Love when they say that


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

flinchjerk said:


> Who said it was? When one puts a new food source 300-400-500 yards from the bedding, things happen though. Very likely only one them guys even knew where the deer were actually bedding though.


You did. You just didn't mean to.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

sureshot006 said:


> I dunno... let's just say for example we find out that bucks get CWD from doe the vast majority of the time (through licking around the rut). Older bucks could have higher rate of infection but it wouldnt necessarily mean they spread it as much as a doe. Now, (allegedly) bait is bad for all and makes a much more negative than positive impact, though we really don't know what that magnitude is.


Maybe we'll find only the fart sniffers get it. But in the meantime...


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

mbrewer said:


> Maybe we'll find only the fart sniffers get it. But in the meantime...


Haha yeah. I am not saying "only". I'm wondering why they are the higher rate of infection and this theory makes sense to me. It would be possible for mature bucks to have higher prevalence but much less impact on regional prevalence than younger bucks and doe.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

Wild Thing said:


> Actually MB...I'm a little burned out on this thread so think what you like. You and I have had differing opinions on APR's since day 1 - no secret there. IMO baiting should have been banned statewide many, many years ago, before CWD ever entered our landscape.


I get the frustration and as I said before I appreciate your input. But (the final one) we aren't talking about APRs we're talking about CWD.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

sureshot006 said:


> Haha yeah. I am not saying "only". I'm wondering why they are the higher rate of infection and this theory makes sense to me. It would be possible for mature bucks to have higher prevalence but much less impact on regional prevalence than younger bucks and doe.


Age and sex based prevalence are a combination of time (incubation) and behavior (exposure).

Doe and buck take CWD and the associated prions with them wherever they go whatever they do.

We can try and complicate or confuse that but we can't really deny it.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

mbrewer said:


> Age and sex based prevalence are a combination of time (incubation) and behavior (exposure).
> 
> Doe and buck take CWD and the associated prions with them wherever they go whatever they do.
> 
> We can try and complicate or confuse that but we can't really deny it.


I understand they can both be carriers. Not denying anything you stated. What is not fully understood is by what mechanism/behavior is transfer likelihood the highest. I think if we want to understand CWD beyond "older deer are more likely to have it" and make hunting rules, we need to know the details.


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

sureshot006 said:


> I understand they can both be carriers. Not denying anything you stated. What is not fully understood is by what mechanism/behavior is transfer likelihood the highest. I think if we want to understand CWD beyond "older deer are more likely to have it" and make hunting rules, we need to know the details.



Do you believe that the study that they are undertaking will provide that?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

motdean said:


> Do you believe that the study that they are undertaking will provide that?


Nope. I think exposure and observation would have to be more controlled and I'm not even sure how it could be done. It's not for me to figure out anyway. I'm not the researcher.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

sureshot006 said:


> Nope. I think exposure and observation would have to be more controlled and I'm not even sure how it could be done. It's not for me to figure out anyway. I'm not the researcher.


I think they already know exposure, direct and indirect transference.



sureshot006 said:


> I think if we want to understand CWD beyond "older deer are more likely to have it" and make hunting rules, we need to know the details


The answer to that, most likely is the infection timeline or incubation. Deer will spread the disease both direct and indirect without showing visible signs of the disease until 16 to 24 months. Now remove the most age group harvested, what's left? The disease continues to spread far after the deer is harvested through indirect transference. This is the majority of deer their are roughly 4% that will show no sign until 5 years of age but during that timeline continue to transfer the disease both direct and indirectly.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Hunters Edge said:


> I think they already know exposure, direct and indirect transference.
> 
> 
> 
> The answer to that, most likely is the infection timeline or incubation. Deer will spread the disease both direct and indirect without showing visible signs of the disease until 16 to 24 months. Now remove the most age group harvested, what's left? The disease continues to spread far after the deer is harvested through indirect transference. This is the majority of deer their are roughly 4% that will show no sign until 5 years of age but during that timeline continue to transfer the disease both direct and indirectly.


I'm looking for what method of transfer is the most common, not the types of exposure.

If I were doing a project at work to improve something, let's say reduce waste, I would create a pareto chart of the occurrences of each method of waste generation and start working on the heavy hitters, not the low impact stuff.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

sureshot006 said:


> I'm looking for what method of transfer is the most common, not the types of exposure.
> 
> If I were doing a project at work to improve something, let's say reduce waste, I would create a pareto chart of the occurrences of each method of waste generation and start working on the heavy hitters, not the low impact stuff.


I agree. They already know direct transference is higher than indirect. Even with that knowledge and other data showing bucks and age having the highest prevalence still ignore that data and implement APR in CWD area. So it does no good to get more data if they are not going to use that data? They obviously are not using the data they already know.


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

sureshot006 said:


> I'm looking for what method of transfer is the most common, not the types of exposure.
> 
> If I were doing a project at work to improve something, let's say reduce waste, I would create a pareto chart of the occurrences of each method of waste generation and start working on the heavy hitters, not the low impact stuff.


There are two major flaws then in the study:

1. It is not a multivariate study. They are only looking at one thing, APR's. If they were, they would have bait, deer carcasses left on the landscape, etc. all as separate variables that would have different areas in the zone allocated to them.

2. They do not have a means to measure the impact. They are only looking at the herd dynamics. There is nothing with respect to CWD spread or prevalence being measured.

In my opinion, at the very least, even if they were doing a study in a disease zone, they would have to be able to measure the variables impact on the disease for it to have any significant value.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

motdean said:


> There are two major flaws then in the study:
> 
> 1. It is not a multivariate study. They are only looking at one thing, APR's. If they were, they would have bait, deer carcasses left on the landscape, etc. all as separate variables that would have different areas in the zone allocated to them.
> 
> ...


Yep. I thought they had already stated they wouldn't get meaningful results?


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Hunters Edge said:


> I agree. They already know direct transference is higher than indirect. Even with that knowledge and other data showing bucks and age having the highest prevalence still ignore that data and implement APR in CWD area. So it does no good to get more data if they are not going to use that data? They obviously are not using the data they already know.


Are you sure that is is already known that direct transference is higher? Initially, that might very well be the case. One you get to a certain prevalence in fairly dense populations, the environmental contamination is likely to trump direct contact, with indirect becoming the greatest factor.
This theory seems to be very likely to me, and the greatest rationale for reducing population densities and limiting spread to other areas. 
<----<<<


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Joe Archer said:


> Are you sure that is is already known that direct transference is higher? Initially, that might very well be the case. One you get to a certain prevalence in fairly dense populations, the environmental contamination is likely to trump direct contact, with indirect becoming the greatest factor.
> This theory seems to be very likely to me, and the greatest rationale for reducing population densities and limiting spread to other areas.
> <----<<<


I can see this being the case long term. Like really long term. But if we dont know the magnitude of each, we will not have real answers.


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

mbrewer said:


> You did. You just didn't mean to.


No I didn't. Finding the bedding and then finding the food and then cutting the deer off in between where is is still legal daylight to shoot is not a special skill. Too bad so few actually try to do such a thing that it is considered a special skill by some. That is actually quite sad. Same winning early season plan works regardless of what that food source is. Another sad thing is that some of the folks that cut off a bait pile or a grove of crabapples do not even recognize they are doing it. In a chunk of public land you are almost always cutting off someone or something. Sadly many do not see that because they do not look. Trying to see the whole picture may be rare in the dump and squat method, but not in the methodology of those that actually hunt. Different does not mean special.


----------



## Lightfoot (Feb 18, 2018)

Hunters Edge said:


> I think they already know exposure, direct and indirect transference.
> 
> The answer to that, most likely is the infection timeline or incubation. Deer will spread the disease both direct and indirect without showing visible signs of the disease until 16 to 24 months. Now remove the most age group harvested, what's left? The disease continues to spread far after the deer is harvested through indirect transference. This is the majority of deer their are roughly 4% that will show no sign until 5 years of age but during that timeline continue to transfer the disease both direct and indirectly.


Time and numbers being thrown out there. Care to share a link or three?



Hunters Edge said:


> I agree. They already know direct transference is higher than indirect. Even with that knowledge and other data showing bucks and age having the highest prevalence still ignore that data and implement APR in CWD area. So it does no good to get more data if they are not going to use that data? They obviously are not using the data they already know.


How many plausible reasons to enact the APR's can you think of?



motdean said:


> There are two major flaws then in the study:
> 
> 1. It is not a multivariate study. They are only looking at one thing, APR's. If they were, they would have bait, deer carcasses left on the landscape, etc. all as separate variables that would have different areas in the zone allocated to them.
> 
> ...


Do you have a link to the actual study protocol?


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Lightfoot said:


> Do you have a link to the actual study protocol?


Nope. They have just told us what they are measuring with APRs in place.

There was a request, and it is on the August agenda for the NRC, to define antlerless harvest objectives.

They have outright stated that they cannot measure spread and prevalence, which was the original intent of the study. Now it is to further understand the herd dynamics.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

sureshot006 said:


> I understand they can both be carriers. Not denying anything you stated. What is not fully understood is by what mechanism/behavior is transfer likelihood the highest. I think if we want to understand CWD beyond "older deer are more likely to have it" and make hunting rules, we need to know the details.


Sure we do. Until then, let's focus our efforts on containment spread minimization strategies, like no bait and not protecting the dirty dispersers.


----------



## hear fishie fishie (Feb 26, 2015)

Flinchjerk
The "dump and squat" method doesn't really require much thinking ability/intelligence and the work component is only limited by how much the squatters want to dump. The DNR tried to help out there by limiting amount that could be dumped to try and even things up in the interest of making it fairer for everyone. 
Actually a mute point now that baiting and feeding has been banned/outlawed in the lower peninsula 
Hear Fishie Fishie


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

hear fishie fishie said:


> The DNR tried to help out there by limiting amount that could be dumped to try and even things up in the interest of making it fairer for everyone.
> 
> Hear Fishie Fishie


Where was it documented that 2 gallon over 10'x10' was implemented to make hunting more "fair"?


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

motdean said:


> There are two major flaws then in the study:
> 
> 1. It is not a multivariate study. They are only looking at one thing, APR's. If they were, they would have bait, deer carcasses left on the landscape, etc. all as separate variables that would have different areas in the zone allocated to them.
> 
> ...


What they're attempting to do is model our future. A future that includes disease but still relies on hunter harvest to control population numbers.

There is some value in gauging that. But at what cost?


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

Joe Archer said:


> Are you sure that is is already known that direct transference is higher? Initially, that might very well be the case. One you get to a certain prevalence in fairly dense populations, the environmental contamination is likely to trump direct contact, with indirect becoming the greatest factor.
> This theory seems to be very likely to me, and the greatest rationale for reducing population densities and limiting spread to other areas.
> <----<<<


Indirect will never trump direct. Not unless you severely limit population numbers on an already heavily contaminated environment. By that point how becomes irrelevant.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

mbrewer said:


> What they're attempting to do is model our future. A future that includes disease but still relies on hunter harvest to control population numbers.
> 
> There is some value in gauging that. But at what cost?


So it bumps 40% prevalence ahead by 2 years over the next 40. Meh. Whatever.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

flinchjerk said:


> No I didn't. Finding the bedding and then finding the food and then cutting the deer off in between where is is still legal daylight to shoot is not a special skill. Too bad so few actually try to do such a thing that it is considered a special skill by some. That is actually quite sad. Same winning early season plan works regardless of what that food source is. Another sad thing is that some of the folks that cut off a bait pile or a grove of crabapples do not even recognize they are doing it. In a chunk of public land you are almost always cutting off someone or something. Sadly many do not see that because they do not look. Trying to see the whole picture may be rare in the dump and squat method, but not in the methodology of those that actually hunt. Different does not mean special.


I'm sitting on the back deck at camp in the UP looking out at 50 thousand acres of no man's land knowing full well that very few people reading this could piece things together and of those who could even fewer would.


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

hear fishie fishie said:


> Flinchjerk
> The "dump and squat" method doesn't really require much thinking ability/intelligence and the work component is only limited by how much the squatters want to dump. The DNR tried to help out there by limiting amount that could be dumped to try and even things up in the interest of making it fairer for everyone.
> Actually a mute point now that baiting and feeding has been banned/outlawed in the lower peninsula
> Hear Fishie Fishie


Yessir, thank God for small miracles. Never actually expected to see a total bait ban in the time I have left. Occasionally, I absolutely love to be totally wrong. Some of the work done by that dump and squat crowd was totally impressive though. Some of them folks spent much more time and effort dragging things in than I did hauling my deer out. Impressive amount of work for such little gain in my eyes. Guess I am just lazy and would rather work smart than hard I suppose.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

@Trout King weren't you looking for a list of names?


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

mbrewer said:


> I'm sitting on the back deck at camp in the UP looking out at 50 thousand acres of no man's land knowing full well that very few people reading this could piece things together and of those who could even fewer would.



Why even try when you have a 2 cubic yard dump trailer right?


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

sureshot006 said:


> @Trout King weren't you looking for a list of names?


I'm over the ********. I'll stick to talking about actual hunting.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Joe Archer said:


> Are you sure that is is already known that direct transference is higher? Initially, that might very well be the case. One you get to a certain prevalence in fairly dense populations, the environmental contamination is likely to trump direct contact, with indirect becoming the greatest factor.
> This theory seems to be very likely to me, and the greatest rationale for reducing population densities and limiting spread to other areas.
> <----<<<


I was just repeating information what MIDNR presentation of data that they made public.


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

Trout King said:


> I'm over the ********. I'll stick to talking about actual hunting.


There is a fine line between hunting and just sitting in a tree like an idiot.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

flinchjerk said:


> There is a fine line between hunting and just sitting in a tree like an idiot.


I see what you did there . Nice and true too


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Lightfoot said:


> Time and numbers being thrown out there. Care to share a link or three?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


All the information was or may still be available from MIDNR. It was informational video about CWD.

I believe it's the informational presentation at the bottom of this link 

https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-350-79136_79608_90516---,00.html


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

Trout King said:


> I see what you did there . Nice and true too


Could not resist :evilsmile Indeed it is true, painfully true in fact. Unfortunately I had to try it both ways to figure that out. :irked:


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

flinchjerk said:


> Could not resist :evilsmile Indeed it is true, painfully true in fact. Unfortunately I had to try it both ways to figure that out. :irked:


Sometimes I question myself. I can admit I'm not the "best" "hunter", so maybe "I'm like a idiot",lol.


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

Trout King said:


> Sometimes I question myself. I can admit I'm not the "best" "hunter", so maybe "I'm like a idiot",lol.


We all do and are at some point. I just wish I could cure the reoccurring bouts of idiocy that sometimes haunt me more than once. I personally have made a career out of that whole, try, fail, fail better next time thing. Now if I could better remember what failed three times ago life would be so much easier. Would love to be able to claim differently than above, but NOPE.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

flinchjerk said:


> Why even try when you have a 2 cubic yard dump trailer right?


We're all looking for success we just go about it and measure it in different ways.

A good bit of the disdain for baiters and baiting is because it and they are so successful.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

In the CWD management zone and CWD core area, you can now use any legal firearm during muzzleloader season.


I wonder if this will get more hunters in the above zones during muzzleloader season.


----------



## Trout King (May 1, 2002)

sparky18181 said:


> In the CWD management zone and CWD core area, you can now use any legal firearm during muzzleloader season.
> 
> 
> I wonder if this will get more hunters in the above zones during muzzleloader season.


 For years my ML was my weapon of choice during regular firearms. With the advent of the new regs I used the .44 and was happy to not go throught the tedious cleaning of my ML every few days. I felt kind of bad for the old girl after the season as she had helped me take ton of deer for her 12+ years of deer killing. Maybe I will pull it out this year, but not likely.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

https://www.michigan.gov/dnr/0,4570,7-350-79136_79608_90516_90536---,00.html


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

Trout King said:


> In fairness to FJ, I believe he was making a joke alluding to my signature line that is supposed to be funny.
> Seriously, some folks need to take a chill pill, or plant (JR28shalm) may help .


I think a really good laxative might be needed much more than that bong for some here.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

flinchjerk said:


> I think a really good laxative might be needed much more than that bong for some here.


You would think a charter captain would get a fishing joke reference, lol.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Dish7 said:


> You would think a charter captain would get a fishing joke reference, lol.


Come on, Have you seen how fishing mods handle conflict?


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

Dish7 said:


> You would think a charter captain would get a fishing joke reference, lol.


Especially seeing as how it is the signature line of the fella I originally quoted.


----------



## Justsayin (Dec 9, 2017)

sureshot006 said:


> What is not fully understood is by what mechanism/behavior is transfer likelihood the highest.


CWD infected deer, alive or dead. This is the mechanism causing the highest transmission. 

Until we can agree to remove CWD positive animals to keep the disease from spreading, and commit to proper disposal of remains... Michigans future will look much like Wisconsins. Sad, but true. 

I don't think any amount of fiddlily farting around with what they might touch, eat, lick, etc. will impact progression. Control the source, control the disease.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Justsayin said:


> CWD infected deer, alive or dead. This is the mechanism causing the highest transmission.
> 
> Until we can agree to remove CWD positive animals to keep the disease from spreading, and commit to proper disposal of remains... Michigans future will look much like Wisconsins. Sad, but true.
> 
> I don't think any amount of fiddlily farting around with what they might touch, eat, lick, etc. will impact progression. Control the source, control the disease.


Lol okay why not just nuke em then? Kill every deer possible and keep them down for the next century and hope it doesnt return.

I'm talking about the most common ways they contract CWD and build regulations accordingly. If you believe we are already doing all the right things, I guess there is no further research needed.


----------



## Justsayin (Dec 9, 2017)

sureshot006 said:


> Lol okay why not just nuke em then? Kill every deer possible and keep them down for the next century and hope it doesnt return.
> 
> I'm talking about the most common ways they contract CWD and build regulations accordingly. If you believe we are already doing all the right things, I guess there is no further research needed.


I have never promoted a kill em all approach... 
CWD has some level of effect on behavior. More vulnerable, less aware. 
APRs in the CWD zone will protect some % of positives from removal. 
MI CWD core zone: Link
37% of positive males were yearlings
40% of positive males were 2.5 
22% of positive males were 3.5+​
Something Dr. O'Brien, Wildlife Epidemiologist, shared at the July NRC meeting, "the idea of accepting a known disease risk (insert reg of choice) in hopes of gaining an offsetting control effect is fundamentally flawed."


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Justsayin said:


> I have never promoted a kill em all approach...
> CWD has some level of effect on behavior. More vulnerable, less aware.
> APRs in the CWD zone will protect some % of positives from removal.
> MI CWD core zone: Link
> ...


Didnt say you advocated to kill em all. Justsayin if we know everything already, the only thing left is total annihilation.

There may be some risk we can take that hunters want, that isnt truly as big a risk as we currently think.


----------



## flinchjerk (May 3, 2018)

mbrewer said:


> We're all looking for success we just go about it and measure it in different ways.
> 
> A good bit of the disdain for baiters and baiting is because it and they are so successful.


Pretty sure our definition of deer hunting success differs drastically. I'll just stop right there. That vain in your com-padre's neck is looking a bit too close to popping.


----------

