# This weeks MI Out of Doors, Jimmy & DNR/CWD



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

50incher said:


> I agree with that, but where is the science & data ?....that's a big part of my complaint !, after once again (how many years)....they say it can be spread by saliva and also by poop & pee, and that it can live in the dirt for years !?


and also be in plants" Infectious, deformed proteins called prions, known to cause *chronic wasting disease* (*CWD*) in deer, can be taken up by *plants* such as alfalfa, corn, and tomatoes, according to new research from the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) in Madison." Yet we have dnr doing food plots and many on here also for food plots!


----------



## red wolf (Apr 1, 2014)

We also have farm fields that deer just about live in year-round. Your food plot point is so myopic in the big picture.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

miruss said:


> and also be in plants" Infectious, deformed proteins called prions, known to cause *chronic wasting disease* (*CWD*) in deer, can be taken up by *plants* such as alfalfa, corn, and tomatoes, according to new research from the National Wildlife Health Center (NWHC) in Madison." Yet we have dnr doing food plots and many on here also for food plots!


A bigger problem is the USDA allowing interstate transportation on AG products from any state that has CWD or even MDARD allowing AG products to be exported past the county line of any county with a CWD. There is no telling how many prions have been exported from Montcalm and Kent counties.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> So bait ban will slow the spread of cwd in the lower, butt still legal to bait in UP??
> 
> Very strange


I guess we _don't _want to be "proactive" in the UP.


----------



## Sasquatch Lives (May 23, 2011)

None of this DNR bs makes any sense at all. Doomed to fail.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Dish7 said:


> I guess we _don't _want to be "proactive" in the UP.


Proactive would be paying student loans for dentists to move there and work


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

jr28schalm said:


> Proactive would be paying student loans for dentists to move there and work


 OMG.......that is about the funniest thing I have ever read. 

If that is an original line--that's a classic.

L & O


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

jr28schalm said:


> Proactive would be paying student loans for dentists to move there and work


BOO, HISS !!!


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

jr28schalm said:


> Proactive would be paying student loans for dentists to move there and work


C'Mon Man!


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

jr28schalm said:


> Proactive would be paying student loans for dentists to move there and work





stickbow shooter said:


> BOO, HISS !!!


Isn't it pronounced BOOF, HISSP!!!...I kid, I kid the Yoopers...don't cha know.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

(Paraphrased) They banned baiting in the entire SLP because they believe CWD exists in more areas than already discovered. 
That is fine. But banning bait doesn't go nearly far enough. I said from the first time CWD was discovered in the wild that we needed peninsula-wide regulations; regulations aimed at reducing densities and limiting dispersal. 
Focusing on known positive areas when you believe that undiscovered areas exist is the proverbial "closing the barn door after the horse has run away". 
THAT is why the plan is destined to fail.... along with the fact that hunters wouldn't do what is necessary to slow the spread anyway. 
<----<<<


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Joe Archer said:


> (Paraphrased) They banned baiting in the entire SLP because they believe CWD exists in more areas than already discovered.
> That is fine. But banning bait doesn't go nearly far enough. I said from the first time CWD was discovered in the wild that we needed peninsula-wide regulations; regulations aimed at reducing densities and limiting dispersal.
> Focusing on known positive areas when you believe that undiscovered areas exist is the proverbial "closing the barn door after the horse has run away".
> THAT is why the plan is destined to fail.... along with the fact that hunters wouldn't do what is necessary to slow the spread anyway.
> <----<<<


How do you limit dispersal? Invisible fence? They're wild animals.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

sureshot006 said:


> How do you limit dispersal? Invisible fence? They're wild animals.


This is what we knew from the best science from day 1. 
Nothing has really changed .... except the convoluted rationalizations ...
*9*. Density reductions should target entire family groups (does and their fawns) to minimize the probability of disease persistence, and yearling bucks to minimize the probability of disease spread via dispersal. Hunter harvest decisions depend most heavily on personal attitudes and are relatively unaffected by agency educational efforts....
Here's a link for you ...
https://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/dnr-view-of-cwd.555550/
<----<<<


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Joe Archer said:


> This is what we knew from the best science from day 1. Nothing has really changed .... except the convoluted rationalizations ...
> *9*. Density reductions should target entire family groups (does and their fawns) to minimize the probability of disease persistence, and yearling bucks to minimize the probability of disease spread via dispersal. Hunter harvest decisions depend most heavily on personal attitudes and are relatively unaffected by agency educational efforts....
> <----<<<


In other words kill every deer?

Fawns sometimes stick around but not always easy to shoot mama and have her 2 little ones hang in there long enough to re-load the xbow 2 more times.

I cant pretend to be fully fluent in dispersal studies, but seems the lower the density, the further a buck will travel to find doe to breed.


----------



## Sasquatch Lives (May 23, 2011)

How exactly will no baiting prevent the spread of cwd


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

sureshot006 said:


> In other words kill every deer?
> 
> Fawns sometimes stick around but not always easy to shoot mama and have her 2 little ones hang in there long enough to re-load the xbow 2 more times.
> 
> I cant pretend to be fully fluent in dispersal studies, but seems the lower the density, the further a buck will travel to find doe to breed.


NO! Not kill every deer. THAT is the unfortunate misconception! We as hunters could significantly reduce populations, AND STILL have excellent hunting.
Many areas in the SLP, especially those around the core could benefit from at least a 50% reduction; even higher in others.
Instead of 30-50 deer in afield anywhere in the SLP, we'd all be better off if those numbers were around 10 or so. 
<----<<<


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Joe Archer said:


> NO! Not kill every deer. THAT is the unfortunate misconception! We as hunters could significantly reduce populations, AND STILL have excellent hunting.
> Many areas in the SLP, especially those around the core could benefit from at least a 50% reduction; even higher in others.
> Instead of 30-50 deer in afield anywhere in the SLP, we'd all be better off if those numbers were around 10 or so.
> <----<<<


Dont kill them all, just kill the doe and all her fawns, and clean up the ones that lived to 1.5 yrs old.

Don't kill more deer, just be more successful in hunting deer.

Without fully understanding dispersal, it still seems like lower populations would cause them to travel. Though with a lower population I do see how it could lower the likelihood of spreading it... example if 50% had CWD, 50% of 100 is more than 50% of 10.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

Joe Archer said:


> NO! Not kill every deer. THAT is the unfortunate misconception! We as hunters could significantly reduce populations, AND STILL have excellent hunting.
> Many areas in the SLP, especially those around the core could benefit from at least a 50% reduction; even higher in others.
> Instead of 30-50 deer in afield anywhere in the SLP, we'd all be better off if those numbers were around 10 or so.
> <----<<<


Dude u gotta stop saying this nonsense. Come hang out with me this summer when beans are prime time, i will show u a crap ton of fields with zero to 5 deer in them


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Since the baiting issue appears to have hit a nerve with many hunters, maybe the DNR could use this to their advantage. How about selling a "baiting permit" that allows the use of 2 gallons of a single bite bait. To be able to purchase the permit *the following year,* a hunter would have to turn a doe in for testing the year they purchase the permit. 
Sell the permits for $25 and use the resource to help offset the cost of testing. 
<----<<<


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Joe Archer said:


> Since the baiting issue appears to have hit a nerve with many hunters, maybe the DNR could use this to their advantage. How about selling a "baiting permit" that allows the use of 2 gallons of a single bite bait. To be able to purchase the permit *the following year,* a hunter would have to turn a doe in for testing the year they purchase the permit.
> Sell the permits for $25 and use the resource to help offset the cost of testing.
> <----<<<


If it somehow could be spent on research it would probably be a benefit.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

It is possible NY got really lucky and found one of only a couple cases existing. Maybe unlikely, but possible.


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

We have to keep in mind that the mother ship (MUCC) is also a special interest group with an agenda.....


----------



## red wolf (Apr 1, 2014)

Have you ever seen different animals on your trail camera? The woods is home to many if that many can spread CWD on a 365 day basis do you really think 2.5 gal of bait if going to hold anything back. The only thing it will hold back is license sales and harvesting deer. Like bait or Not remove that method will result in less deer killed per year.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Where's swampy at??...He'll figure all this out for you guys...

Sent from my LG-H871 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

red wolf said:


> Have you ever seen different animals on your trail camera? The woods is home to many if that many can spread CWD on a 365 day basis do you really think 2.5 gal of bait if going to hold anything back. The only thing it will hold back is license sales and harvesting deer. Like bait or Not remove that method will result in less deer killed per year.


How do you know that any of those animals can spread CWD? You just stated in a post prior that we dont know.

As far as your 2.5 gallon of bait logic you might be right. A 2 gal limit of bait might not mean anything. The issue is nobody adheres to the limit. I spend alot of time on stateland between grouse hunting, trapping and bowhunting. I come across many bait piles throughout the year. I have never once seen a legal bait pile. Said it many times on here. Most people throw a bag or two of bait many throw out 3-4 bags at a time. Nobody spreads their bait in a 10×10 area. The closest I have ever seen to a legal bait pile is one old timer that used apple cores and peelings. He hunted close to a trail and he would put out a gallon about every other day. He always put them in a small pile. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Sasquatch Lives (May 23, 2011)

DirtySteve said:


> How do you know that any of those animals can spread CWD? You just stated in a post prior that we dont know.
> 
> As far as your 2.5 gallon of bait logic you might be right. A 2 gal limit of bait might not mean anything. The issue is nobody adheres to the limit. I spend alot of time on stateland between grouse hunting, trapping and bowhunting. I come across many bait piles throughout the year. I have never once seen a legal bait pile. Said it many times on here. Most people throw a bag or two of bait many throw out 3-4 bags at a time. Nobody spreads their bait in a 10×10 area. The closest I have ever seen to a legal bait pile is one old timer that used apple cores and peelings. He hunted close to a trail and he would put out a gallon about every other day. He always put them in a small pile.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Exactly! I think most of us hunting public land have seen the same thing. Before they pass more ******** laws they need to enforce the ones we have. In nearly 20 years of hunting public land I have never seen a warden in the woods. Even called in two illegal piles one year with no apparent results to I quit wasting my time. Trying to explain to the chick on the phone where they were was like trying to explain calculus III to a three year old in german.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Sasquatch Lives said:


> Exactly! I think most of us hunting public land have seen the same thing. Before they pass more ******** laws they need to enforce the ones we have. In nearly 20 years of hunting public land I have never seen a warden in the woods. Even called in two illegal piles one year with no apparent results to I quit wasting my time. Trying to explain to the chick on the phone where they were was like trying to explain calculus III to a three year old in german.


I am not sure your time was wasted like you think. It can take time to catch an illegal baiter. I have told the story many times of my inlaw when he was busted. He put out too much bait late oct and didnt come back until Nov 15. The officer went to the bait site. Then came back two more times unsuccessfully when he saw vehicles in the area. He got him opening day. The officer told him the pile was called in by someone. He made a total of 4 trips to the site over 3 weeks. 

For that reason alone I don't call in bait piles. It is a huge waste of an officers time to spent that effort on a single ticket in my opinnion. Think about how many called in occurences where the officer never sees the violator. To me it is just easier to ban baiting. I blame the baiters.....none of them follow the rules.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Sasquatch Lives (May 23, 2011)

DirtySteve said:


> I am not sure your time was wasted like you think. It can take time to catch an illegal baiter. I have told the story many times of my inlaw when he was busted. He put out too much bait late oct and didnt come back until Nov 15. The officer went to the bait site. Then came back two more times unsuccessfully when he saw vehicles in the area. He got him opening day. The officer told him the pile was called in by someone. He made a total of 4 trips to the site over 3 weeks.
> 
> For that reason alone I don't call in bait piles. It is a huge waste of an officers time to spent that effort on a single ticket in my opinnion. Think about how many called in occurences where the officer never sees the violator. To me it is just easier to ban baiting. I blame the baiters.....none of them follow the rules.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


I would like to think so. I did hear a guy got busted near where I hunt this year. I am looking forward to no baiting but will report any piles I find just to see what happens. I want healthy deer as much as anyone else so I hope they follow through. Gotta admit I don't think baiting is the problem. Most people bait two or three weeks out of the year. I think most disease is transmitted over *the other 49 or 50 weeks of the year. *What happens during november is probably inconsequential.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Sasquatch Lives said:


> I would like to think so. I did hear a guy got busted near where I hunt this year. I am looking forward to no baiting but will report any piles I find just to see what happens. I want healthy deer as much as anyone else so I hope they follow through. Gotta admit I don't think baiting is the problem. Most people bait two or three weeks out of the year. I think most disease is transmitted over *the other 49 or 50 weeks of the year. *What happens during november is probably inconsequential.


I agree I think that baiting is probably a relatively low part of disease transmission. I think biologists haven't agreed with baiting for a long time for many reasons but the DNR hasnt pushed the issue because of public opinion. I think those upset that CWD is being used as an excuse to end baiting may be partly right. I also think the baiters are partly to blame for not adhering to the regulations as they should have over the years.

Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

sureshot006 said:


> Waif isn't dumb by any means. Just has a broader view. I had a hard time reading Waif-isms, too but once you get the hang of it, he's actually pretty insightful and makes you think.


Waif does tend to circle around and approach topics from some curious angles now and again, I blame it on only having one leg to get there. :evil:

Once he gets where he's going it's generally worth the wait.


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

Sasquatch Lives said:


> Exactly! I think most of us hunting public land have seen the same thing. Before they pass more ******** laws they need to enforce the ones we have. In nearly 20 years of hunting public land I have never seen a warden in the woods. Even called in two illegal piles one year with no apparent results to I quit wasting my time. Trying to explain to the chick on the phone where they were was like trying to explain calculus III to a three year old in german.


My friend had better luck giving them GPS coordinates of the bait piles. All they had to do was show up the next day when the people were in their pop-up blinds, which were also illegal since their name wasn't on them and they were left out overnight.

I agree about state land. I don't think I have ever seen a legal site regardless if it's bait, blinds, ladders, or tree stands. This year I even saw where a group had built a cabin next to a lake. They used garage doors they got from somewhere and foam to seal it up. They also left the camping permit with their names, lol. They checked the "other" box for the question that asked about the type of camping, tent, etc.


----------



## Whitetail Freak (Nov 10, 2008)

DirtySteve said:


> I agree I think that baiting is probably a relatively low part of disease transmission. I think biologists haven't agreed with baiting for a long time for many reasons but the DNR hasnt pushed the issue because of public opinion. I think those upset that CWD is being used as an excuse to end baiting may be partly right. I also think the baiters are partly to blame for not adhering to the regulations as they should have over the years.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G950U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


My feeder was 50 yards from house and never ran out of corn. It spread corn 365 days a year for year after year in the same spot. Drive around and look at all the backyard feeders, really common in rural housing developments. I am in the cwd zone and don’t know if I would bring the feeder back out if the ban was lifted. I just wish they would stick to a plan, whatever that is!


----------



## brookie1 (Jan 26, 2011)

Whitetail Freak said:


> My feeder was 50 yards from house and never ran out of corn. It spread corn 365 days a year for year after year in the same spot. Drive around and look at all the backyard feeders, really common in rural housing developments. I am in the cwd zone and don’t know if I would bring the feeder back out if the ban was lifted. I just wish they would stick to a plan, whatever that is!


Unfortunately there was a chance to put this to rest years ago when baiting was banned in 2008. All the NCR had to do was listen to the DNR and not lift the ban in 2011, but nope, not them, so now we have a new mess.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

mbrewer said:


> Waif does tend to circle around and approach topics from some curious angles now and again, I blame it on only having one leg to get there. :evil:
> 
> Once he gets where he's going it's generally worth the wait.
> 
> View attachment 367427


I want to be clear, is this a cheap shot or a funny comment?


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I want to be clear, is this a cheap shot or a funny comment?


It's a continuation of what I consider to be good natured ribbing between friends. I don't believe there is any doubt to those paying attention that I have nothing but respect for Waif.

If so, I'd be happy to dispel that right now. I respect the hell out of that one legged bass turd.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I want to be clear, is this a cheap shot or a funny comment?


Whatever the response, be prepared with a follow up question...

Sent from my LG-H871 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

sniper said:


> Whatever the response, be prepared with a follow up question...
> 
> Sent from my LG-H871 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Good Boy!


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

mbrewer said:


> Good Boy!


Per usual, have zero idea what language you pattern yourself after.

Sent from my LG-H871 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

mbrewer said:


> It's a continuation of what I consider to be good natured ribbing between friends. I don't believe there is any doubt to those paying attention that I have nothing but respect for Waif.
> 
> If so, I'd be happy to dispel that right now. I respect the hell out of that one legged bass turd.


So all of us are supposed to know you make fun of amputees?...Nice...
I should be surprised but...

Sent from my LG-H871 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

mbrewer said:


> It's a continuation of what I consider to be good natured ribbing between friends. I don't believe there is any doubt to those paying attention that I have nothing but respect for Waif.
> 
> If so, I'd be happy to dispel that right now. I respect the hell out of that one legged bass turd.


Okay, then, now that we have that cleared up I can LOL

From your recent comment on another thread, I wasn't sure if your sense of humor was working properly.


----------



## FullQuiver (May 2, 2006)

Trophy Specialist said:


> So you have hunted all through the U.P. recently and think there are too many deer? Deer numbers are still way below goal or the carrying capacity in the vast majority of th U.P.


Define "too many" and carrying capacity.. Then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion...


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

FullQuiver said:


> Define "too many" and carrying capacity.. Then maybe we can have a meaningful discussion...


I'll try to make this simple for you. Biologists set goals for deer populations in the U.P. and elsewhere in MI. If deer numbers are too low (under goal) then antlerless quotas are lowered or eliminated all together. It they feel their are too many deer, then they antlerless quotas are added or increased. Of course deer densities vary in any DMU, but they try to average it out. I can look at habitat and tell pretty quick weather there are too many deer in an area. If you see your white cedar sprouting up all over or maple and other deer preferred browse going unmolested, then deer numbers are well below carrying capacity. If you see browse damage everywhere even on undesirable forage for deer, then there are probably too many.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I'll try to make this simple for you. Biologists set goals for deer populations in the U.P. and elsewhere in MI. If deer numbers are too low (under goal) then antlerless quotas are lowered or eliminated all together. It they feel their are too many deer, then they antlerless quotas are added or increased. Of course deer densities vary in any DMU, but they try to average it out. I can look at habitat and tell pretty quick weather there are too many deer in an area. If you see your white cedar sprouting up all over or maple and other deer preferred browse going unmolested, then deer numbers are well below carrying capacity. If you see browse damage everywhere even on undesirable forage for deer, then there are probably too many.


The UP summer range isn't the limiting factor, it can support far more deer than the winter range allows. If you see over-browsed summer range in the UP you won't have to worry about it occurring more than another year or so. Winter range conditions will "correct" it.


----------



## FullQuiver (May 2, 2006)

Trophy Specialist said:


> I'll try to make this simple for you. Biologists set goals for deer populations in the U.P. and elsewhere in MI. If deer numbers are too low (under goal) then antlerless quotas are lowered or eliminated all together. It they feel their are too many deer, then they antlerless quotas are added or increased. Of course deer densities vary in any DMU, but they try to average it out. I can look at habitat and tell pretty quick weather there are too many deer in an area. If you see your white cedar sprouting up all over or maple and other deer preferred browse going unmolested, then deer numbers are well below carrying capacity. If you see browse damage everywhere even on undesirable forage for deer, then there are probably too many.


Yeah that I can understand.. I will say that I would agree that there are vast areas of the UP that currently are what many would consider deer deserts.. That hunters would like to see more deer to get to what are considered "huntable" numbers.. and that biologists don't work in a vacuum setting desired DPSM numbers.. Hunter desire influences what biologists set for goals.. 

The problem arises with the fact that through mismanagement and grossly overpopulated numbers during the 90"s and even very early 2000's long term winter habitat was destroyed some of it for many decades to come... 

So basically when the deer are not in the yards there is more than enough food for them to survive.. Perhaps even a surplus.. I get that... However when they do yard there isn't enough.. (You obviously agree because you desire to continue with winter feeding) Also, because of this mismanagement, (the past) things won't get "better" for a very long time in the deer yards which are the limiting factor ultimately for carrying capacity.. 

If we continue to artificially maintain the herd through winter feeding programs above what these yards can naturally maintain (with no feeding) we will continue to damage these yards.. *The previous sentence is the key..* Only making the matters worse and making the deer even more dependent on this unnatural supply of food during anything but the mildest of winters... A giant vortex of unsustainablitity.. 

I know it is a great big $h!t sandwich for those who hunt the upper including myself but continuing with this program in the long run only make matters worse.. In all likelihood you nor I will ever see the UP deer hunting that we once knew and maybe we should never have seen it in the first place...


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

FullQuiver said:


> Yeah that I can understand.. I will say that I would agree that there are vast areas of the UP that currently are what many would consider deer deserts.. That hunters would like to see more deer to get to what are considered "huntable" numbers.. and that biologists don't work in a vacuum setting desired DPSM numbers.. Hunter desire influences what biologists set for goals..
> 
> The problem arises with the fact that through mismanagement and grossly overpopulated numbers during the 90"s and even very early 2000's long term winter habitat was destroyed some of it for many decades to come...
> 
> ...


In much of the U.P. now days, it's usually not a lack of browse in winter complexes that kills deer during the winter, but rather its just that they can't get to it efficiently enough due to deep snow limiting travel. It causes a calorie deficit where they burn more trying to get to food beyond the nutritional value of what they eat. Add to that more predators than ever now chasing them around all winter stressing them and further depleting the fat reserves and you have a higher winter mortality rate despite better habitat. My property used to have too many deer. We used to shoot all the does we wanted and then some, but there were still too many with little if any white cedar or other deer preferred winter food regeneration. Now we have too few deer despite not having shot any does for many years. Winter kill and fawning rates are now worse than ever despite having far fewer deer and habitat now that is ideal for wintering deer. I'm in a deer winter complex, so deer in my area do not migrate from my area, they migrate to it. We have young white cedar all over the place and maple and other deer favorites also sprout un-eaten. If it weren't for a few people feeding deer in the winter and killing wolves, we would have even far fewer deer.


----------



## FullQuiver (May 2, 2006)

The third S... Yeah I am not sure that is the case all over the UP in wintering areas but I am glad to hear of some rebound in your area.... Hopefully this trend continues but again things are in what I and many believe to be a fragile balance....


----------



## G20man (Sep 4, 2018)

sureshot006 said:


> Yes. It needs to be worth it.


Ok. 
So if a bait ban only reduces the spread of cwd by 5% it's not worth it and we'll keep baiting because it's really not worth banning. 

Keep that in mind when or if aprs show up in a disease area. 
Aprs may only increase the spread of cwd a small percentage making not allowing them not really a worthy effort towards fighting disease.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

G20man said:


> Ok.
> So if a bait ban only reduces the spread of cwd by 5% it's not worth it and we'll keep baiting because it's really not worth banning.
> 
> Keep that in mind when or if aprs show up in a disease area.
> Aprs may only increase the spread of cwd a small percentage making not allowing them not really a worthy effort towards fighting disease.


Exactly. I know you're trying to be slightly sarcastic, but at 5% its not worth it, IMO.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

FullQuiver said:


> The third S... Yeah I am not sure that is the case all over the UP in wintering areas but I am glad to hear of some rebound in your area.... Hopefully this trend continues but again things are in what I and many believe to be a fragile balance....


The parts of the central U.P. that I traverse a lot all seem to be in about the same overall low deer density situation. Sure I come across pockets of fairly high deer numbers here and there, but I see far more square miles of woodlands nearly void of deer sign.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Trophy Specialist said:


> The parts of the central U.P. that I traverse a lot all seem to be in about the same overall low deer density situation. Sure I come across pockets of fairly high deer numbers here and there, but I see far more square miles of woodlands nearly void of deer sign.


Mike you need to hunt closer to Wildthing or luv2..These guys shoo deer away up there..lol

Sent from my LG-H871 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## terryna (Mar 21, 2018)

Indeed, very interesting thread


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

sniper said:


> Mike you need to hunt closer to Wildthing or luv2..These guys shoo deer away up there..lol
> 
> Sent from my LG-H871 using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


I'm not complaining about my own personal hunting, but just stating some facts about how things are in most of the U.P. aside from some hot areas that a lot of people hear about and equate to the the rest of the region. As long as I'm healthy, I'll likely always scrounge up some success in the U.P. regardless of how bad things get there. Most hunters will never hunt to the extreme like I do though and they shouldn't be punished by people demanding poor deer management policies that may devastate the deer herd and the hunting there. Keep in mind that the total number of deer hunters has dropped by about twice the rate compared to the loss of hunters in the LP. I find that troubling and don't want to see that horrible statistic exacerbated needlessly.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Has the DNR actually done a study of a legal bait site under hunting conditions? I have never seen one. Everything I find is more feeding than baiting. There is a difference. I find it strange that after watching deer at bait sites for hundreds of hours, I have never seen actual nose to nose contact.


----------



## Big CC (Mar 30, 2010)

Justin said:


> Has the DNR actually done a study of a legal bait site under hunting conditions? I have never seen one. Everything I find is more feeding than baiting. There is a difference. I find it strange that after watching deer at bait sites for hundreds of hours, I have never seen actual nose to nose contact.


It seems to me that the biggest objection to the DNR’s response is that there isn’t a lot of science behind it and they are just hoping that this works. Maybe in theirs defense they don’t know what works, but it is going to be tough to sell any decision that they make because ultimately some hunters won’t be happy.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Trophy Specialist said:


> He probably would, but it I bet it would be a vague answer with not even a guess with possible numbers. The fact is we have killed thousands already due to CWD and will kill thousands more if we stay the course. If baiting and feeded were banned statewide the death toll could be cumulatively in the millions with many areas of the state where whitetails current live being wiped out completely when hard winters hit.


Fact is, between cars, winter's and hunters, deer killed state wide is hundreds of thousands annually. That number never changes. Oh, I forgot wolves. The DNR has a few dead deer from CWD yet it's a major epidemic. I don't see the urgency YET to put a plan like they are in place state wide. Yes, in the effected areas maybe a strategy needs to be utilized. Over reaction is the DNRs middle name. I'm not thinking the state will have an interaction by another agency in this baiting issue. I believe the DNR will enforce a baiting ban but not the entire lower. Only the CWD areas and ajoining counties. Time will tell. I have a Deer/Bear camp in the Marquette/Alger county area and I do use bait as it brings the lady's in typically followed up by the men. This baiting thing is IMO a good thing for the younger crowd to keep them in deer. Without deer, they don't want to be in the woods.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Another question I would have liked asked to Chad Stewart would be: If the MI DNR is blaming baiting for causing or spreading CWD and banning it will somehow have an impact on the disease, then why has CWD popped up and spread in states that have never allowed baiting with some of these states having a higher CWD prevalence than MI?


Baiting hasn't caused CWD. That's BS. They are doing it to eliminate that possibility. Covering all the areas where it could spread further into the herd.


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

johnIV said:


> Baiting hasn't caused CWD. That's BS. They are doing it to eliminate that possibility. Covering all the areas where it could spread further into the herd.


Then explain why they have not banned Maprs!


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

miruss said:


> Then explain why they have not banned Maprs!


I can't explain anything. Hell, if I could, I'd try to explain why the dept makes the decisions it does.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

miruss said:


> Then explain why they have not banned Maprs!


Do you believe CWD was caused due to baiting in Michigan ?


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Down in the areas where CWD was found are probably the least baited areas of Michigan. Mostly agriculture and farm land. There's more baiting in northern lower than anywhere else in Michigan and not one deer found with CWD. What's the explanation for that ? Bovine TB was found in the Northeast and after baiting was banned it continued to exist and spread. More deer in younger age classes were found with it way after the ban was in place. That tells me that baiting did not increase the population of TB deer. I think CWD banning will provide the same results. It will not change the problem.


----------



## miruss (Apr 18, 2003)

johnIV said:


> Do you believe CWD was caused due to baiting in Michigan ?


Nope more then likely trophy hunters bring the junk back from their out of states hunt.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

miruss said:


> Nope more then likely trophy hunters bring the junk back from their out of states hunt.


Possibility. One I hadn't thought of. I did know the first case was brought into this state by an out of state(live) deer.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

johnIV said:


> Possibility. One I hadn't thought of. I did know the first case was brought into this state by an out of state(live) deer.


?? The first case was the Kent County deer from a small(about 20 acres) breeding high fence facility. She was the only deer out of 50 with the disease. She was born in the facility. She had 3 sets of fawns.

L & O


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Liver and Onions said:


> ?? The first case was the Kent County deer from a small(about 20 acres) breeding high fence facility. She was the only deer out of 50 with the disease. She was born in the facility. She had 3 sets of fawns.
> 
> L & O


My memory is that it WAS in that deer farm but was a deer from another state brought to that facility. That's what I seem to remember happening. My memory isn't what is used to be tho.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

johnIV said:


> My memory is that it WAS in that deer farm but was a deer from another state brought to that facility. That's what I seem to remember happening. My memory isn't what is used to be tho.


I'm sure the article about the deer/facility/& convicted owner is still available with a Google search.

L & O


----------



## red wolf (Apr 1, 2014)

I remember when the DNR did their magic tricks / work on Lake Huron. It went something like this now you can catch a salmon ——- poof ——- and now you don’t.. I expect the same results with the deer over the next few short years.


----------



## Sasquatch Lives (May 23, 2011)

Don't worry, the DNR will f it up for sure.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Sasquatch Lives said:


> Don't worry, the DNR will f it up for sure.


Too late... They already did


----------



## GWTH09 (Mar 1, 2009)

Does it bother anyone else that the dnr is baiting in Gratiot county this time of year on a nature preserve to bring deer in for sharpshooters to kill for testing? This is all because of 1 positive deer killed in that county.


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Absolutely. Does it surprise anybody...probably not.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

GWTH09 said:


> Does it bother anyone else that the dnr is baiting in Gratiot county this time of year on a nature preserve to bring deer in for sharpshooters to kill for testing? This is all because of 1 positive deer killed in that county.


Nope, there doing a job and shooting does instead of just spikes


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

Pretty hard to tell spikes from does this time if year. There probably only shooting does that aren't pregnant either


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

GWTH09 said:


> Does it bother anyone else that the dnr is baiting in Gratiot county this time of year on a nature preserve to bring deer in for sharpshooters to kill for testing? This is all because of 1 positive deer killed in that county.


I saw that one on MOOD TV last night. The word "Hypocrite" was used accurately to describe the DNR on the show with that move. How much money is being spent on sharp shooters to kill deer for testing? And if they do find more CWD positive deer from that effort and expense, then what good will that information ultimately serve?


----------



## 98885 (Jan 18, 2015)

If they do follow thru with the entire lower baiting ban, I feel the UP isn't far behind. Didn't surprise me that they just so happened to find a CWD deer just inside the state line. It definitely sealed the deal to stop baiting up there. They'll magically find another one this year and plans to ban baiting for 2020 will be in stone.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

johnIV said:


> Pretty hard to tell spikes from does this time if year. There probably only shooting does that aren't pregnant either


They would WANT to kill the preggo ones to ensure a lower population.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

johnIV said:


> If they do follow thru with the entire lower baiting ban, I feel the UP isn't far behind. Didn't surprise me that they just so happened to find a CWD deer just inside the state line. It definitely sealed the deal to stop baiting up there. They'll magically find another one this year and plans to ban baiting for 2020 will be in stone.


The skeptic is never disappointed.


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Russ needs to go.


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

stickbow shooter said:


> Russ needs to go.


I'm actually surprised he hasn't been fired already. My guess is that the new administration is doing an in depth review to see who all is history and it will likely be a long list.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

GWTH09 said:


> Does it bother anyone else that the dnr is baiting in Gratiot county this time of year on a nature preserve to bring deer in for sharpshooters to kill for testing? This is all because of 1 positive deer killed in that county.


This cant be true??? Baiting causes cwd to spread.


----------



## mattawanhunter (Oct 30, 2011)

NO and I am very disappointed Michigan out-of-doors put this segment on!

Anybody that has read my posts knows that I have been disappointed in the DNR over certain issues over the years but this is not one of them , these are unprecedented times and this is an unprecedented disease that Chad Stewart and the DNR are trying to get ahead of, no group of hunters is going to be able to go in and cull and scientifically test a bunch of animals to try to prevent the spread of the disease!
Do I feel bad for the guy or property owners in the area absolutely but if you want to have a future deer population with the possibility of them being CWD free extreme measures need to be taking now obviously they waited way too long in the Madison area and they were behind the eight ball !

We all know that in most areas lower pennisula except the big woods areas for the most part deer herds will rebound it's only the high snowfall zones in the upper peninsula that really have this happen! My example here is how they have rebounded in southwest Michigan after the devastating EHD we had serval years back the population has really rebounded!

Deer hunting as we once knew it, consumption of deer meat with CWD,falling numbers of Deerhunters
And the traditional deer camp in Michigan have changed forever!




GWTH09 said:


> Does it bother anyone else that the dnr is baiting in Gratiot county this time of year on a nature preserve to bring deer in for sharpshooters to kill for testing? This is all because of 1 positive deer killed in that county.


----------

