# But it's the law !



## COHO

i dont like the ban, but it is what it is. it will not last through next season because alot of guys are not hunting as much or at all. we hunted opening day this year in antrim and i only heard 2 shots in the morning, and 1 was my dad . i thought this year would suck because i did not bait like last year, but i saw more deer and way more bucks this year. so now i wonder if they lift the ban, i think i might go without baiting for 1 more year and see what happens. bait is getting too expensive anyway, i bet i saved at least 200.00 in fuel and bait this year.i also think alot of guys who got out this year and got a deer without it will try it again next year without it


----------



## Tom (mich)

35CAT said:


> As for me - I'll be the Rosa Parks of the bait pile.


The whole baiting issue notwithstanding, you do understand that Rosa Parks was her real name right? That she didn't stand behind some cowardly screen name, pumping her chest, all the while being truly anonymous? 

If, by chance, your name is truly 35CAT, please accept my apology.


----------



## glnmiller

To answer your question, what am I going to do? I am not a poacher, I am going to follow the law and not bait. I will adjust my hunting approach accordingly, scout more, pattern the deer and hunt a little harder. So far it has paid off for me.


----------



## Biggsy

Here we go again. THE BAITING BAN IS JUST WRONG!!!! CWD is not in our free ranging deer herd. The DNR is 95% +/- 1 sure that it is not. The only reason they enacted the ban is because they don't know where the original deer got CWD. I'm with ya Rosa.:rant::lol::lol:


----------



## bmoffit

I'll give this until noon before it gets way out of hand and gets shut down


----------



## sbooy42

Sounds like someones upset becuase they have to learn how to hunt.... :gaga:


----------



## Cedar Swamp

Thread not as bad as I thought it would get. Just in case, I 'll be here.. ..if anyone needs me.


----------



## holzy

*please close this thread*


----------



## NoWake

sbooy42 said:


> Sounds like someones upset becuase they have to learn how to hunt.... :gaga:


Actually the normal progression seems to be, baiting then learning how to grow a garden, then learning how to hunt. 

Many never get past the gardening phase.


----------



## marty

Just come to the the TB zone and look around and see how well the bait ban has worked.:yikes: There's few deer hunters around anymore. Very rare to see deer on cars in the north. No orange in public at all. Seems hunters are going extinct around here.. 

Great law... spend lots of money fighting crime.:lol:


----------



## William H Bonney

scott kavanaugh said:


> First off, not one post has answered his question including you boer, of course you would be giving your guns away, way down in Florida.
> 
> People (should) be able to post any thing that they find interesting or feel a need to communicate, on this site, provided it's in good taste. The fact that it's alittle volatile, or some members wish it would quietly go away, is their problem.
> 
> As far as the plan being made up 6 years ago. I think anyone with a brain assumed they would update it as new information became available. A lot of people call it knee jerk because it obviously wasn't revisited. (or was it????)
> 
> Right is right and wrong is wrong. There is no mistaking the damage that has already been done to our sport by this ban. The DNR has hid behind the fact that their saving our herd from long term damage. They have done this with facts that are misleading at best. Many of these so called facts have been simply proven to be wrong already.
> 
> The credibility of the Michigan DNR/NRC is already seriously weak at best. They are going to have very little time to decide if they are going to continue to try and achieve their current agenda or do the right thing and lift the ban. I think if they let it go past this season, it will get the the same respect the ban gets in the TB zone. We will all be baiting (Sara parksing), that care too.


Good post, but "seriously weak at best" was being awfully nice. You coulda compared their credibility to the 3 Stooges, Keystone Cops, Millen/Moronelli.....Bumbling Baffoons..:lol:


----------



## standsetter

Spomeone didn't get a Deer this year? lol


----------



## MichMatt

This is listed on the FAQ sheet on the MI DNR site. 

_"Although the exact means of transmission of chronic wasting disease is not known, most scientists believe any exchange of bodily fluids -- saliva, urine, feces  facilitates transmission." _

So we have "scientist" and "law makers" who do not utilize facts to enact a law or act.  Scientist is a pretty general term  are these scientist biologist, geologist, chemists or even astronauts? Hopefully "skilled" biologist. Using their above rational the transfer of genetic material puts the whole heard at risk. Oh-Oh - better stop the progeny. Wait that's what animal activists want for population control - to stop the progeny.

While there was planning for this act (back to 2002) the only thing known for sure was that an animal was found with CWD in the LP. No other supporting data (that I have seen) exists at this time that supports the act. 

If the state wishes to put a baiting law into affect it should incorporate the entire state as opposed only certain areas. While I would prefer to bait when I want to I continue to abide by the law. Bow hunting in late December will be tough without bait.

One last thought: Imagine the consequences of the lack of fact-based decision making with other hot topics (i.e., gun control and hunting and fishing regulations among many others).


----------



## Meskin255

Personally I have rarely ever baited in the past. Once in a while to bring some does in to an area and keep them there a little longer hoping the bucks would follow them. 

I can say that this year has actually been some of the best hunting I have ever had so far! Seems like with no bait around, The deer are actually looking for natural food sources, and becoming patternable. I have always scouted around to try and find natural feeding areas, and funnels leading to and from bedding areas for my stand locations. 

I think that the reduction in people hunting because of the bait ban, is just those that were never true hunters anyway! If it is something that you truly enjoy, then you should be willing to put in the time it takes learn the sport. Look anywhere else in the country, and tell me that you "Need" baiting to get a deer! Do they bait Mule Deer or Elk out west? Do they bait for deer in the deep woods of New England? How many hunting shows do you ever see them hunting over bait? Sure it may make things easier, but you don't "need" it to be successful! 

Now on the other hand, I do agree that there are things the government should not be involved in, and there are things that they should. Is this one of them, yes I think so! Was their plan a little extreme, perhaps. It is still the law none the less. There are lots of laws though that all of us violate on a daily basis, so I don't expect that this one would be any different. Do you always drive speed limit or less?? Always change lanes with a turn signal? Sure those are minor things, but they are still laws......right? I don't know that this law is of "Rosa Parks" stature though...Your civil rights have not been violalated here, your not being treated like less of a human.....


----------



## Hunter333

I think that the speed limit laws are stupid so look out, I'm doing 100+ the next time I get on the road, snow or no snow! Obey the laws or get them changed. Break the law, pay the price it's that easy.


----------



## Pinefarm

BREAKING NEWS!!

In an act of solidarity with the civil disobedience, Ghandi has suggested all hunters march to the ocean to gather symbolic salt to show opposition to the salt block ban.

Malcolm X has suggested all hunters defy the bait ban by any means necessary.

Hunter S. Thompson suggests grinding up carrots and snorting them as part of the savage journey to find the heart of the American Dream.

Obi Wan Kenoni says...that's no moon, it's a truck load of carrots.


----------



## Firefighter

35CAT said:


> Yes the DNR imposed baiting ban is now a law - you cannot bait deer in the lower peninsula. Do we follow this "law' just because it is a law. Not all laws are good laws nor do they always have the best interest of anyone in mind. This no-baiting law is a BAD LAW It makes no sense, there has never been any scientific evidence that CWD is transfered from animal to animal by sharing apples, carrots or corn spread out on the ground in a 10 foot radius ( the old baiting law) There were alot of bad laws back in the sixties, you know - All ******* to the back of the bus. That was a law, Thank God a woman by the name of Rosa Parks decided that she was not going to follow that law. It brought about "change" - sound familiar? I'd like to know how many of the "Pro-baiting ban" people who keep ranting "it's the law now" would be so apt to follow the law if for some reason, God forbid, our great nation went the way of New Zeeland and Australia and the "law' became that we had to turn in our guns to be destroyed or have the option of keeping them in a govenment run armory. I want to know what you would do? Would you turn them in because now it's the law, or would you stand up and practice a little cival disobedience? As for me - I'll be the Rosa Parks of the bait pile.


----------



## wally-eye

Firefighter said:


>




Thats too funny.........:lol:


----------



## Violator22

wait a minute, I need to get set up for this one.


----------



## thedude

baiting ban rules. they should take it a step further and only allow you to hunt with a broad sword like a real man... not some sissy with a rifle.


----------



## kristie

i have a broad sword.......
















:evilsmile


----------



## bigsablemike

35CAT said:


> Yes the DNR imposed baiting ban is now a law - you cannot bait deer in the lower peninsula. Do we follow this "law' just because it is a law. Not all laws are good laws nor do they always have the best interest of anyone in mind. This no-baiting law is a BAD LAW It makes no sense, there has never been any scientific evidence that CWD is transfered from animal to animal by sharing apples, carrots or corn spread out on the ground in a 10 foot radius ( the old baiting law) There were alot of bad laws back in the sixties, you know - All ******* to the back of the bus. That was a law, Thank God a woman by the name of Rosa Parks decided that she was not going to follow that law. It brought about "change" - sound familiar? I'd like to know how many of the "Pro-baiting ban" people who keep ranting "it's the law now" would be so apt to follow the law if for some reason, God forbid, our great nation went the way of New Zeeland and Australia and the "law' became that we had to turn in our guns to be destroyed or have the option of keeping them in a govenment run armory. I want to know what you would do? Would you turn them in because now it's the law, or would you stand up and practice a little cival disobedience? As for me - I'll be the Rosa Parks of the bait pile.


 
baiting is not a constitutional right.firearm ownership is.


----------



## Violator22

As I have said before, "You do what your wallet can afford!"


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Every time somebody tries to rationaly talk about baiting in a thread on this site, it gets moved by a moderator to sound off. I can certainly understand it being moved if the participants are being rude or the verbiage has nothing to do with deer. But to continue to hide it because the majority of moderators are anti baiting is wrong. I don't know why they just didn't tell us up front they only allow people to have there QDM mentality. If you try to talk about things that don't align with their goals, they are just going to try and supress your opinions, any way they can.


----------



## ih772

thedude said:


> baiting ban rules. they should take it a step further and only allow you to hunt with a broad sword like a real man... not some sissy with a rifle.


 They should allow throwing knives as well. :evil:


----------



## Pinefarm

Talk rationally? :lol: 
The "I'm the Rosa Parks of the bait pile" will go down as a hall of fame silly post here. :lol:

As far as moving or hiding bait posts, first I don't believe I moved it. And I'm not sure what moderators are openly anti-bait, other than me. Do you have names of other anti-bait moderators?

But the bait ban has nothing to do with deer hunting anymore. So it doesn't belong in the deer hunting forum. People can discuss baiting in the UP, but whining about not being able to bait is like whining because cops don't tolerate drunk driving anymore. It's a thing of the past and now illegal. 

Sound Off has more threads and posts than any other forum. So there is no hiding going on anytime something is moved there.

If anything, all bait ban threads should probably go into Wildlife Disease, since that is the basis of the ban.

I'll move it from Sound Off for you.


----------



## fishinmachine2

Pinefarm said:


> People can discuss baiting in the UP, but whining about not being able to bait is like whining because cops don't tolerate drunk driving anymore. It's a thing of the past and now illegal.


 
Its funny you mention this, I was driving by a bar the night before the gun opener and seeing all the people in there wondering how many guys were drinking and then get in the trucks and drive back to camp??? And yet people act like throwing out a bag of carrots is worse!! Oh well, what the heck do I know!! Good Luck the rest of the hunting season!!

Scott


----------



## Pinefarm

No, the correct analogy is that people complaining about not being able to bait in the LP are like those complaining about not being able to legally drive after only 5-6 beers and only being "buzzed". 
Both are socially harmful acts and illegal acts, regardless if many disagree with the rule or not.


----------



## MarkSend

Pine, thank somebody that so many people ignored the law in the 1920`s or this country would still be "dry". If no cwd is found in the wild for the next couple of years one would quess that bait piles unless insanely large will become almost a side issue like shooting a coyote on the 23rd of november in zones 1 and 2.


----------



## STEELCHASER5150

Thunderhead said:


> LMAO " _Rosa Parks of the bait pile_. " :lol: You gotta be chitten me.


 Love It !!


----------



## Roosevelt

Pinefarm said:


> Talk rationally? :lol:
> 
> 
> ...But the bait ban has nothing to do with deer hunting anymore. So it doesn't belong in the deer hunting forum. People can discuss baiting in the UP, but whining about not being able to bait is like whining because cops don't tolerate drunk driving anymore. It's a thing of the past and now illegal...


 
So, when the guns are made illegal you can use this same analogy for that and we can all just sit around twittling our thumbs, because hunting will be a thing of the past... :bloos:


----------



## Roosevelt

scott kavanaugh said:


> First off, not one post has answered his question including you boer, of course you would be giving your guns away, way down in Florida.


No sheet! Most people won't realize what's going on till their guns have been taken away. Then they can take all their "outta my cold dead hands" BS to the woods and hunt with that.

People shouldn't be able to comment on this site unless they're from MI. Especially ones who hide their state of residence.....boehr!:16suspect


----------



## wally-eye

Roosevelt said:


> No sheet! Most people won't realize what's going on till their guns have been taken away. Then they can take all their "outta my cold dead hands" BS to the woods and hunt with that.
> 
> People shouldn't be able to comment on this site unless they're from MI. Especially ones who hide their state of residence.....boehr!:16suspect



Quite obvious you don't have a clue about his background.........


----------



## Roosevelt

Does he live in MI?


----------



## wally-eye

Roosevelt said:


> Does he live in MI?



Rays a big boy and has dealt with jerks all his life so I'm sure he's able to defend himself so I don't have to......

But as far as banning an out-of-stater from posting well I'll leave that to Steve since he owns this site...........


----------



## Pinefarm

If no more CWD is found in the next few years, the NRC may decide to bring some legal forms of bait back. But for now, and until MDNR can get their arms around the extent and frankly the source, this is what they all decided was best, for now.

Since most posters here are likely very good deer hunters, I would suspect that the bait ban wouldn't effect their success much, either way.


----------



## cadillacjethro

Pinefarm said:


> If no more CWD is found in the next few years, the NRC may decide to bring some legal forms of bait back. But for now, and until MDNR can get their arms around the extent and frankly the source, this is what they all decided was best, for now.
> 
> Since most posters here are likely very good deer hunters, I would suspect that the bait ban wouldn't effect their success much, either way.


This affects more people than just deer hunters. I don't care one way or the other if you like or want to bait. What bothers me are the *sound scientific principles *that are (or not) being used here. You anti-baiters need to pull your pants up and come out of the corner. Ask yourself if you are *honestly* satisfied with the science, or maybe you just want baiting banned no matter the cost. If you think the science is sound, the 'Ole boy was right when he said "You just can't fix stupid." Baiting is illegal in the LP and all should obey the law. I would hope all here would want the best science used when decisions such as these are made, even if they don't fit our own agendas.


----------



## funlund

> This affects more people than just deer hunters. I don't care one way or the other if you like or want to bait. What bothers me are the *sound scientific principles *that are (or not) being used here. You anti-baiters need to pull your pants up and come out of the corner. Ask yourself if you are *honestly* satisfied with the science, or maybe you just want baiting banned no matter the cost. If you think the science is sound, the 'Ole boy was right when he said "You just can't fix stupid." Baiting is illegal in the LP and all should obey the law. I would hope all here would want the best science used when decisions such as these are made, even if they don't fit our own agendas.
> __________________
> Take care and tight lines
> Jeff


finaly someone that can think for them selfs. as for baiting who stoped??? i've seen thousands of trucks pulling away from the feed store across the road. i have put out 6-7 truck loads and always will intill someone gives me a real reason not to.


----------



## BigDog25

35CAT said:


> Yes the DNR imposed baiting ban is now a law - you cannot bait deer in the lower peninsula. Do we follow this "law' just because it is a law. Not all laws are good laws nor do they always have the best interest of anyone in mind. This no-baiting law is a BAD LAW It makes no sense, there has never been any scientific evidence that CWD is transfered from animal to animal by sharing apples, carrots or corn spread out on the ground in a 10 foot radius ( the old baiting law) There were alot of bad laws back in the sixties, you know - All ******* to the back of the bus. That was a law, Thank God a woman by the name of Rosa Parks decided that she was not going to follow that law. It brought about "change" - sound familiar? I'd like to know how many of the "Pro-baiting ban" people who keep ranting "it's the law now" would be so apt to follow the law if for some reason, God forbid, our great nation went the way of New Zeeland and Australia and the "law' became that we had to turn in our guns to be destroyed or have the option of keeping them in a govenment run armory. I want to know what you would do? Would you turn them in because now it's the law, or would you stand up and practice a little cival disobedience? As for me - I'll be the Rosa Parks of the bait pile.


Here's a law to try:

Get off your lazy ass and actually try hunting for a change instead of shooting.

How many glasses of ******* Kool-Aid did you drink before posting this? You go from a baiting ban to a gun ban...Come on people, day after day I lose more faith in the fellow sportsmen out there in Michigan.


----------



## wally-eye

Waaaaaa I can't bait............


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Direwolfe said:


> The doctor's maxim applies (though its not in the Hippocratic oath) "first, do no harm". If you take your kid to the hospital and the doc says " I'm not sure what he has and I recommend starting a course of antibiotics as it looks as if its a bug . It may not fix the condition but it won't hurt the child" do you then tell the doc "If you don't have peer reviewed studies proving that antibiotics are required for this condition, you cant recommend them" ? Is the doc's plan not based on scientific principles even if it turns out it was not effective?
> 
> Banning baiting won't stop the spread of CWD, but it is logical that it will slow it, buying more time to fight it. This constitutes sound science. We've known about gravity for hundreds of years. Physicist are not sure what causes gravity though they can relate it to mass and predict it. Are you saying short of knowing its cause its non-scientific to factor in gravity into equations? Without a peer reviewed consensus on what causes gravity its magic or vodoo and thus scientists can't rely on it?
> 
> Now you say there's no proof of CWD in MI's free ranging herd so we can't take a protective step. I guess you're opposed to vaccines also ( both are prophalactic steps that are examples of why you don't wait til you have an threatening condition and instead try to prevent it from happening). There may be CWD in the free ranging herd that we have not detected. Either way we need to try to contain its threat. The contrary is to say "I'll give up cigarettes when they confirm I have lung cancer". Or is lung cancer research non-scientific if there are no studies that show You will get lung cancer by smoking? Stopping smoking won't prevent all lung cancer but its scientifically based that if you stop smoking your chances are reduced though not eliminated.
> 
> Now Munster will weigh in that baitng may be a net benefit by reducing herd numbers. I respect that but the answer is there are plenty of ways to reduce numbers but the hunters block them. The availability of other ways to thin the herd means we shouldn't take off the table a method which probably does help fight the disease.
> 
> I'm dissapointed by those who say, to the effect of "CWD is no big deal, CO lives with it, other disease kill more deer, etc." CWD doesn't threaten the herd so much as it threatens hunting. But that opinion has been expressed many times previously and will not be repeated here.


 
Direwolf your post seems, well, thoughtout. So you feel we should err on the side of extream caution with the deer herd to assure we all have deer hunting in michigan for a long time. Great, then it should be an across the board effort, right? Because right now, were testing and the baiters aren't baiting. But:

WHAT ABOUT THE BAITING IN THE U.P.?
WHAT ABOUT THE HEAVY/OVER CONCENTRATIONS OF DEER ON MANY QDM PROPERTIES AND CO-OPS?
WHAT ABOUT THE PLOTTING THAT IS CONCENTRATING DEER IN MANY AREAS ACCROSS MICHIGAN?
WHAT ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL PLOTTING THAT IS BEING CAUSED BY THE BAN, THAT WILL CAUSE MORE CONCENTRATIONS OF DEER?
WHAT ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL CONCENTRATIONS OF DEER THAT ARE ON FARMS DUE TO THE BAN?
WHAT ABOUT HEAVY/OVER CONCENTRATIONS ON FARMS?
WHAT ABOUT ALL THE WANNABE DEER MANAGERS IN MICHIGAN WHO MANAGE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE WANTS OF THE DNR/NRC?
WHAT ABOUT THE GAME FARMS?
WHAT ABOUT THE BREEDERS?
WHAT ABOUT THE TAXIDERMIST?
WHAT ABOUT THE GOV/INDEPENDENT DEER BIOLOGIST/VET?
WHAT ABOUT THE GUY WHO PLANTS PLOTS FOR A LIVING?
WHAT ABOUT UNNESSASARILY CAUSING CONTACT OR DRAGGING CONTAMINATED DIRT AROUND?
WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE FIRST BREAKOUT OF CWD EAST OF THE MISSISSSIPPI WAS SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BIGGEST QDM OPERATION IN THE MIDWEST?

I find it appauling that everyone only wants to take simple precautions, err on the side of caution, blah blah blah, when it's the baiters, farmers and business owners involved with the ban, going to take the hit. It's easy to talk tough standing outside the ring.


----------



## BigDog25

scott kavanaugh said:


> Hey pinefarm where you hanging out??? The seasons closed. You and farmlegend accused everybody and their brother of being a reincarnated banned member if they didn't agree with your positions on this ban and were new in the last few months.
> 
> This guy comes out fireing both barrels and slaming pro baiters insinuating swearing " on a family forum" and your good, no problem. Personaly I don't believe he's a banned member, I know it's rod clute, but still, what gives????????:lol::lol::lol:
> 
> Oh and hey Rod in reference to your post that were the kind of anonomous individuals that hide behind a computer screen. My name is at the top of every post I make.


Seriously, you guys are nuts! DNR Black Ops, Rod ?, Do you actually do any hunting or just internet surfing?


----------



## Spartan88

For those on both sides of the baiting fence, read the chapter on diseases in Richard P. Smith's book Deer Hunting Third Edition.

I live and hunt in the TB zone, every year since I've planted and hunted over food plots I've watched deer lick each other's face. There is your nose to nose contact that spreads TB. I'm fairly certain its spread during breeding also. I have used a bleat call and had bucks come in literally drooling.

My thoughts on why people are not getting deer tested are pretty simple, people don't trust or like the DNR. They have some serious PR issues and this was before the Kent County CWD case.


----------



## Dawg

It is (still) the law! and somehow we managed to get through deer season.

Deer acted like deer and wasn't it glorious?

Active deer runs from September didn't leaf over and become abandoned October 1st. A browsing species _had to browse_ for longer durations of time. They had to remain mobile instead of gorging themselves nocturnally and then sleeping it off during the day. The deer made a logical progression through preferred food sources and wasn't that a curve ball? Deer numbers didn't concentrate around artificial food sources, they remained spread out over a larger number of acres... and then didn't over-consume natural browse through concentration. All that and it was probably better for them than the previous dietary and caloric intakes.

Why, I've even read of people walking and losing weight. Some even realized the essence of hunting is to actually "(v) hunt". Crazy. Good and good for you.

Be skeptical. Be cynical. Be downright paranoid if you want. The bait ban *doesn't have one single negative implication to hunters*. It doesn't reduce opportunity and it subtracts nothing from our hunting heritage. If you enjoy your time in the woods, with family and friends, etc., absolutely nothing has changed &#8212; except maybe the spot you choose to sit and that could provide a better view if you give it a chance.

Now that is the reality and the immediacy. Frankly, the biology of communicable diseases and their transference is a volume that has barely been scratched here and regardless, is anyone really going to experience a change of heart?


----------



## Munsterlndr

kristie said:


> posted above for those who requested research done showing how bait can aid in the transmission of disease.
> Kristie


I'm well aware of the Palmer & Whipple study.. All that study concludes is that M. Bovis can exist for extended periods on vegetable matter. This has also been documented in other studies that show M. Bovis can survive on growing grass in pastures for up to 7 weeks (Williams & Hoy) and an MSU study that showed that M. Bovis can survive in water, soil, hay & corn for up to 2 weeks during the winter. (Fine, Kanenee, Bolin). 
None of these studies are directly related to the practice that was banned in the baiting ban, that is putting out small quantities of food stuffs that are quickly consumed. 
Bait in small quantities tends to get consumed quickly, most of the time within a 24 hour period. Small quantities that are consumed quickly do not provide sufficient "drawing" power to bring deer in from other areas and concentrate them. Supplemental feeding, which is the practice discussed in both Schmitt's study and in Palmer & Whipple, has the potential to concentrate deer in small areas, thus facilitating the spread of infectious disease. Food plots also have this capacity, because they offer substantial quantities of food to wildlife over long periods of time.

The only study that I know of specifically measuring the impact of bait piles, not supplemental feeding, is Van Deelans Wisconsin study. He tested the differences between 4 baited study sites and 1 unbaited control site that had natural browse. Much to his chagrin, since he had a clear anti-baiting bias going into the study, was the fact that the unbaited control site showed a higher incidence of deer concentration than 2 of the 4 baited sites. So much for the argument that baiting "un-naturally" concentrates deer. 

Given the evidence that M. Bovis can exist for long periods in the study you noted, can you honestly say that carrots used for baiting in a small quantity have a greater potential for spreading disease then either a turnip planted in a food plot, that is nibbled on by multiple deer or hay stored in a farmers field?


----------



## kristie

Kudo's to you Munster for sharing your opinion of the the research I posted and sharing your knowledge of other research and how your feel about it.
That's the only reason I posted it. To provide information, as requested.
Kristie
Now I'll continue my work.


----------



## Direwolfe

SK, I don't know if you questions are directed to me but since you posted respectfully, I'll respond.

WHAT ABOUT THE BAITING IN THE U.P.?
Should be banned. Same disease concerns regardless of latitude.

WHAT ABOUT THE HEAVY/OVER CONCENTRATIONS OF DEER ON MANY QDM PROPERTIES AND CO-OPS?
WHAT ABOUT THE PLOTTING THAT IS CONCENTRATING DEER IN MANY AREAS ACCROSS MICHIGAN?
WHAT ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL PLOTTING THAT IS BEING CAUSED BY THE BAN, THAT WILL CAUSE MORE CONCENTRATIONS OF DEER?
The issue is whether man is taking actions that causes additional congregating. I don't know if plotting does that but it is sure worth the study. In my opinion the DNR/NRC would have sufficient scientific basis to ban plotting practice based on what we know now to avoid doing some potential harm. I would support such a ban, again because it would be in the best interest of the resource. As previously discussed, the wording of such a ban and its enforcement would be difficult but that's not the question here.

WHAT ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL CONCENTRATIONS OF DEER THAT ARE ON FARMS DUE TO THE BAN?
WHAT ABOUT HEAVY/OVER CONCENTRATIONS ON FARMS?
I don't take your questions to be about whether legitimate farm practices should be banned. They shouldn't. As far as the concentration, I'm all for the DNR handing out more permits of all kinds to encourage deer herd reduction. I'm not for any kind of attack on person property rights either (mandating hunter access). You would think the farmer's economic self-interest would encourage additional deer harvest. Possibly some sort of carrot-and-stick approach (no pun intended).E.g. no subsidy without proving sufficient effort to thin herd.

WHAT ABOUT ALL THE WANNABE DEER MANAGERS IN MICHIGAN WHO MANAGE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE WANTS OF THE DNR/NRC?
Again not sure of what your asking. I take it this is directed to food plotters or "QDM'ers"? There are laws and there are "wants". Laws must be followed. I don't know what the "wants" of the DNR are. Is it no turnips in DMU452 etc.? If so we should as a matter of ethics follow the suggestions. I don't know what other "wants" you may be referring to.

WHAT ABOUT THE GAME FARMS?
WHAT ABOUT THE BREEDERS?
All for banning them. I don't see where they have any redeeming social purpose.

WHAT ABOUT THE TAXIDERMIST?
They need to comply with the laws regarding transmission of disease such as CWD precautions. Those rules don't seem too onerous.

WHAT ABOUT THE GOV/INDEPENDENT DEER BIOLOGIST/VET?
Not sure about what you're asking re: these persons.

WHAT ABOUT THE GUY WHO PLANTS PLOTS FOR A LIVING?
I assume you're talking about someone who offers their services to property owners to plant food plots. Refer to discussion of food plots above. Namely I don't think managers should plant crops to feed the deer this coming year and studies should be done about whether food plots are significant disease vectors. So, he may need to find other work.

WHAT ABOUT UNNESSASARILY CAUSING CONTACT OR DRAGGING CONTAMINATED DIRT AROUND?
Again not sure what you're referring to. If "contact or dragging contaminated dirt around" refers to food plotting, I've responded above. I'm against any further human encouraged promotion of contact. Hence no food plots this year but we don't have to cut down existing oaks because their mast does not reflect _further human encouraged _ contact, i.e. what has been done has been done.

WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE FIRST BREAKOUT OF CWD EAST OF THE MISSISSSIPPI WAS SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BIGGEST QDM OPERATION IN THE MIDWEST?
I understand this is your slam against QDM? I'm all for researching the cause of the outbreak. I've read (no proof one way or the other) that it might have been caused by supplemental feeding of deer in that area with feed contaminated by animal protein. I'm opposed to any supplemental feeding of deer. Doesn't make sense to my understanding of game management. If the disease appeared because of some game management action I'm all for banning it whether its a QDM principal or not.


"I find it appauling that everyone only wants to take simple precautions, err on the side of caution, blah blah blah, when it's the baiters, farmers and business owners involved with the ban, going to take the hit. It's easy to talk tough standing outside the ring. "
I don't know if that was directed to me or not. I'll just state a few facts and you can make up your own mind about whether I'm "standing outside the ring". I own and manage my personal hunt camps in three states. They're all owned free and clear of any debt by money I earned. I've managed these properties extensively for whitetail deer . Their primary value is for hunting property. The presence of CWD greatly diminishes their market value. Currently that's only the Michigan one. If CWD is found in the other two states I'm likewise screwed.
I no longer live in Michigan. Now that Michigan is an official CWD state, if I shoot a deer in Michigan I must have it processed in Michigan as part of the CWD regulations before I can take it home. This reduces my hunting time available in Michigan as I must reserve a last day for personally processing any deer I've shot.
I've been "food plotting" before that term was coined. I "plot" for diverse wildlife as well as the health of the soil. I will not be planting for "deer food" next year. In fact I didn't plant any this year. Don't believe me? Check my previous posts such as "Deer anti-food plots". This year I'll again be plotting for soil build-up with plants that won't appeal to deer and I'll be hoping studies of food plots as discussed above will be conducted. If food plots are detrimental to deer because of disease concerns, the build up will result in plots for non-deer game and non game animals (e.g. birds) or I'll let them be fallow.


Since HD also reponded to my post I'll take this opportunity to reply.


"Let me tell you doc. First there is no doubt what they have. It is nothing!"
Since the post was about the scientific basis for the ban and specifically stated "presence" was assumed, you may wish to consult the materials from that reading comprehension course you took before you post.

"But assume they had CWD. Now this would be the equivalent of taking my child in for a broken arm and the ONLY thing the doctor wanted to do is give the child an antibiotic. I'd say Quack."
You'd talk like a duck? Oh... I understand now. You took your kid to someone because you thought he was a learned professional and when he doesn't say what you want to hear, your first move is to insult him! Once again you're posting from a fact free environment, the DNR plan does not consist only of baiting. But even taking your example, when your kid dies of sepsis due to a compound fracture or the abrasion incident to the trauma that broke the arm, I'm sure child protective services would compliment you on your medical acumen. I'm also sure you'd reply by calling them names.

"If the doctor used the words "may be" "probably" and "appear to have" in the same answer to one question. Well, I'd find a new doctor." 
I'm sure your position is based on your years of experience rendering considered professional opinions in a learned profession (sorry, sometimes you have to use accurate terms. For you I'll try to use little words and type slowly). If it was, you'd understand why those terms are used. Actually I'm surprised you'd consult with any doctor, new or old, given you suffer from unjustified delusions of omniscience.

"If you call the ban on baiting a vaccine I'm sure glad you are not my doctor."
The feeling is reciprocal. Right now the diagnosis of you is not very complimentary.

" A vaccine is a preventative. I have seen no documentation that banning bait really slows the spread of TB or CWD. It still spreads and there is no known way to fight it even if you could slow it. It is just a guess and I would not let someone shoot me up with a guess."
Now its "really slows the spread"? The issue as previously stated is whether the ban has sufficient indicia of scientific basis for buying time for more research. You're now justified in demanding a tuition refund for that reading comprehension class.

"If they were interested in slowing the spread far more precautions would be taken." 
Such as what's in the plan and being proposed now, e.g. herd reduction? Facts don't apply to you apparently.

"Bottom line is dollars and special interest groups. Federal funding, research dollars to biologists and universities etc."
The issue is the baiting ban. Are you immune from providing support for your factual assertions? Cite your basis by identifying every "federal funding" for how many "research dollars" to what "biologists and universities" that has been occaisoned by the DNR _banning baiting_. That's right, how have the black helicopter crowd been given money by banning baiting? All of the research dollars I've seen being discussed are due to the presence of CWD within the state or adjacent it. The banning of baiting has literally profitted no one that I'm aware of. 

"Sorry to disappoint you with the truth."
After a work day of analyzing and editing persuasive writing on a variety of technical subjects, I sometimes want to read something completely different. With that criterion, your posts never dissapoint! I would point out that nothing is more persuasive than relying on unsubstantiated assertions that "its true, its true". The only dissapointment is that the internet doesn't allow us to hear you stamping your feet while you say it.:sad:


----------



## cadillacjethro

We may not agree on everything DW but you are thinking for yourself. That is both welcomed and refreshing.


----------



## 6inchtrack

Dawg said:


> It is (still) the law! and somehow we managed to get through deer season.
> 
> The bait ban *doesn't have one single negative implication to hunters*.


I will only comment on this;
We did not help to reduce the population this year because we didn't put any venison in the freezer.
And not for the lack of trying.


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Direwolfe said:


> SK, I don't know if you questions are directed to me but since you posted respectfully, I'll respond.
> 
> WHAT ABOUT THE BAITING IN THE U.P.?
> Should be banned. Same disease concerns regardless of latitude.
> 
> WHAT ABOUT THE HEAVY/OVER CONCENTRATIONS OF DEER ON MANY QDM PROPERTIES AND CO-OPS?
> WHAT ABOUT THE PLOTTING THAT IS CONCENTRATING DEER IN MANY AREAS ACCROSS MICHIGAN?
> WHAT ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL PLOTTING THAT IS BEING CAUSED BY THE BAN, THAT WILL CAUSE MORE CONCENTRATIONS OF DEER?
> The issue is whether man is taking actions that causes additional congregating. I don't know if plotting does that but it is sure worth the study. In my opinion the DNR/NRC would have sufficient scientific basis to ban plotting practice based on what we know now to avoid doing some potential harm. I would support such a ban, again because it would be in the best interest of the resource. As previously discussed, the wording of such a ban and its enforcement would be difficult but that's not the question here.
> 
> WHAT ABOUT THE ADDITIONAL CONCENTRATIONS OF DEER THAT ARE ON FARMS DUE TO THE BAN?
> WHAT ABOUT HEAVY/OVER CONCENTRATIONS ON FARMS?
> I don't take your questions to be about whether legitimate farm practices should be banned. They shouldn't. As far as the concentration, I'm all for the DNR handing out more permits of all kinds to encourage deer herd reduction. I'm not for any kind of attack on person property rights either (mandating hunter access). You would think the farmer's economic self-interest would encourage additional deer harvest. Possibly some sort of carrot-and-stick approach (no pun intended).E.g. no subsidy without proving sufficient effort to thin herd.
> 
> WHAT ABOUT ALL THE WANNABE DEER MANAGERS IN MICHIGAN WHO MANAGE INDEPENDENTLY OF THE WANTS OF THE DNR/NRC?
> Again not sure of what your asking. I take it this is directed to food plotters or "QDM'ers"? There are laws and there are "wants". Laws must be followed. I don't know what the "wants" of the DNR are. Is it no turnips in DMU452 etc.? If so we should as a matter of ethics follow the suggestions. I don't know what other "wants" you may be referring to.
> 
> WHAT ABOUT THE GAME FARMS?
> WHAT ABOUT THE BREEDERS?
> All for banning them. I don't see where they have any redeeming social purpose.
> 
> WHAT ABOUT THE TAXIDERMIST?
> They need to comply with the laws regarding transmission of disease such as CWD precautions. Those rules don't seem too onerous.
> 
> WHAT ABOUT THE GOV/INDEPENDENT DEER BIOLOGIST/VET?
> Not sure about what you're asking re: these persons.
> 
> WHAT ABOUT THE GUY WHO PLANTS PLOTS FOR A LIVING?
> I assume you're talking about someone who offers their services to property owners to plant food plots. Refer to discussion of food plots above. Namely I don't think managers should plant crops to feed the deer this coming year and studies should be done about whether food plots are significant disease vectors. So, he may need to find other work.
> 
> WHAT ABOUT UNNESSASARILY CAUSING CONTACT OR DRAGGING CONTAMINATED DIRT AROUND?
> Again not sure what you're referring to. If "contact or dragging contaminated dirt around" refers to food plotting, I've responded above. I'm against any further human encouraged promotion of contact. Hence no food plots this year but we don't have to cut down existing oaks because their mast does not reflect _further human encouraged _contact, i.e. what has been done has been done.
> 
> WHAT ABOUT THE FACT THAT THE FIRST BREAKOUT OF CWD EAST OF THE MISSISSSIPPI WAS SMACK IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BIGGEST QDM OPERATION IN THE MIDWEST?
> I understand this is your slam against QDM? I'm all for researching the cause of the outbreak. I've read (no proof one way or the other) that it might have been caused by supplemental feeding of deer in that area with feed contaminated by animal protein. I'm opposed to any supplemental feeding of deer. Doesn't make sense to my understanding of game management. If the disease appeared because of some game management action I'm all for banning it whether its a QDM principal or not.
> 
> 
> "I find it appauling that everyone only wants to take simple precautions, err on the side of caution, blah blah blah, when it's the baiters, farmers and business owners involved with the ban, going to take the hit. It's easy to talk tough standing outside the ring. "
> I don't know if that was directed to me or not. I'll just state a few facts and you can make up your own mind about whether I'm "standing outside the ring". I own and manage my personal hunt camps in three states. They're all owned free and clear of any debt by money I earned. I've managed these properties extensively for whitetail deer . Their primary value is for hunting property. The presence of CWD greatly diminishes their market value. Currently that's only the Michigan one. If CWD is found in the other two states I'm likewise screwed.
> I no longer live in Michigan. Now that Michigan is an official CWD state, if I shoot a deer in Michigan I must have it processed in Michigan as part of the CWD regulations before I can take it home. This reduces my hunting time available in Michigan as I must reserve a last day for personally processing any deer I've shot.
> I've been "food plotting" before that term was coined. I "plot" for diverse wildlife as well as the health of the soil. I will not be planting for "deer food" next year. In fact I didn't plant any this year. Don't believe me? Check my previous posts such as "Deer anti-food plots". This year I'll again be plotting for soil build-up with plants that won't appeal to deer and I'll be hoping studies of food plots as discussed above will be conducted. If food plots are detrimental to deer because of disease concerns, the build up will result in plots for non-deer game and non game animals (e.g. birds) or I'll let them be fallow.
> 
> 
> Since HD also reponded to my post I'll take this opportunity to reply.
> 
> 
> "Let me tell you doc. First there is no doubt what they have. It is nothing!"
> Since the post was about the scientific basis for the ban and specifically stated "presence" was assumed, you may wish to consult the materials from that reading comprehension course you took before you post.
> 
> "But assume they had CWD. Now this would be the equivalent of taking my child in for a broken arm and the ONLY thing the doctor wanted to do is give the child an antibiotic. I'd say Quack."
> You'd talk like a duck? Oh... I understand now. You took your kid to someone because you thought he was a learned professional and when he doesn't say what you want to hear, your first move is to insult him! Once again you're posting from a fact free environment, the DNR plan does not consist only of baiting. But even taking your example, when your kid dies of sepsis due to a compound fracture or the abrasion incident to the trauma that broke the arm, I'm sure child protective services would compliment you on your medical acumen. I'm also sure you'd reply by calling them names.
> 
> "If the doctor used the words "may be" "probably" and "appear to have" in the same answer to one question. Well, I'd find a new doctor."
> I'm sure your position is based on your years of experience rendering considered professional opinions in a learned profession (sorry, sometimes you have to use accurate terms. For you I'll try to use little words and type slowly). If it was, you'd understand why those terms are used. Actually I'm surprised you'd consult with any doctor, new or old, given you suffer from unjustified delusions of omniscience.
> 
> "If you call the ban on baiting a vaccine I'm sure glad you are not my doctor."
> The feeling is reciprocal. Right now the diagnosis of you is not very complimentary.
> 
> " A vaccine is a preventative. I have seen no documentation that banning bait really slows the spread of TB or CWD. It still spreads and there is no known way to fight it even if you could slow it. It is just a guess and I would not let someone shoot me up with a guess."
> Now its "really slows the spread"? The issue as previously stated is whether the ban has sufficient indicia of scientific basis for buying time for more research. You're now justified in demanding a tuition refund for that reading comprehension class.
> 
> "If they were interested in slowing the spread far more precautions would be taken."
> Such as what's in the plan and being proposed now, e.g. herd reduction? Facts don't apply to you apparently.
> 
> "Bottom line is dollars and special interest groups. Federal funding, research dollars to biologists and universities etc."
> The issue is the baiting ban. Are you immune from providing support for your factual assertions? Cite your basis by identifying every "federal funding" for how many "research dollars" to what "biologists and universities" that has been occaisoned by the DNR _banning baiting_. That's right, how have the black helicopter crowd been given money by banning baiting? All of the research dollars I've seen being discussed are due to the presence of CWD within the state or adjacent it. The banning of baiting has literally profitted no one that I'm aware of.
> 
> "Sorry to disappoint you with the truth."
> After a work day of analyzing and editing persuasive writing on a variety of technical subjects, I sometimes want to read something completely different. With that criterion, your posts never dissapoint! I would point out that nothing is more persuasive than relying on unsubstantiated assertions that "its true, its true". The only dissapointment is that the internet doesn't allow us to hear you stamping your feet while you say it.:sad:


To be honest with you direwolf, I was useing your post to express the flavor of the the big idea, that eliminating baiting is a condom for this disease, and the only ones that need to wear one is the fithy old baiters.

I just was wondering why no one else felt the need, or why the surgons general (in this case the dnr/nrc) don't make some reccomendations for safety sake????? Right now, for the most part, the only people in the state that have done anything to help curb this communicable disease, is the baiters. Go figure.:lol:


----------



## dsgt1

bottom line is no baiting. dont worry the dnr officer told me they aren't writting tickets for baiting anymore they are just waiting for you to shoot a deer over bait so it will cost u more in fines. $500 for the bait ,and $1000 for restitution of wildlife. this is a very expensive venision steak. This is what I was told by him maybe garbage dont know.


----------



## scott kavanaugh

dsgt1 said:


> bottom line is no baiting. dont worry the dnr officer told me they aren't writting tickets for baiting anymore they are just waiting for you to shoot a deer over bait so it will cost u more in fines. $500 for the bait ,and $1000 for restitution of wildlife. this is a very expensive venision steak. This is what I was told by him maybe garbage dont know.


Did he tell you they were watching the bait from satellites too?????????:lol::lol::lol:


----------

