# Uncle Ted on Michigan Out of Doors



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

What I thought Ted did best is put everything in terms of the average family. Not the semi-dysfunctional MS family that likely has a lot more time to hunt than most. His messages were for the masses. Maybe that's why it sounded political?


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

stickbow shooter said:


> It does get old.


What? You an attraction at a carnival? Lol jk


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

sureshot006 said:


> What? You an attraction at a carnival? Lol jk


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> You are taking what he said out of context. He was comparing baiting to natural food supply. In this case moving apples from under a tree.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


His exact words were “There is no correlation between baiting and feeding deer and the spread of ANY disease.”

That’s seems pretty cut and dry to me. Not much to take out of context. That comment is the exact opposite of what Doug said about reducing nose to nose contact to curb the spread of TB.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Dish7 said:


> Sounds like a threat. You going to speed dial your congressman again?


He's going to chase you down with his air boat


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Dish7 said:


> Sounds like a threat. You going to speed dial your congressman again?


LOL, stay tuned

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

motdean said:


> A couple of interesting things about the "Ted Talk":
> 
> 1. Ted was in no way a fan of "starve the beast" mentality for those that do not agree with particular deer management regulations. He still encouraged those to buy their licenses and get out in the field regardless.
> 
> .......


If I recall correctly, the "starve the beast" comment was made here a few years ago by a member. Does anyone know if that member walked that statement back or if he doubled down on the idea ?

L & O


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> His exact words were “There is no correlation between baiting and feeding deer and the spread of ANY disease.”
> 
> That’s seems pretty cut and dry to me. Not much to take out of context. That comment is the exact opposite of what Doug said about reducing nose to nose contact to curb the spread of TB.


Yea I wasnt with him on that... the question though is "does it make a statistical difference?"

Ive never, ever, hunted a bait PILE. I think that practice is weird... and back when I baited i cant remember any nose to nose that was due to bait. It was always natural social interaction.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

sureshot006 said:


> I wouldnt want person after person approaching me either.


Twice he approached us and twice I approached him. The last I tried to do it a discretely as possible, to introduce him to a young man who's father grew up on the farm that Ted now owns over by Concord. That left the worst taste in my mouth and why I have nothing good to say, so I don't say much.


----------



## deepwoods (Nov 18, 2002)

I thought he was spot on. I struggle with the thought that someone putting bait out a few weekends a year is the death call for hunting when a farmer. foot plotter, etc.. puts crops out that draw deer (most of the year in some cases) to a single area for possibly decades or more. Then I am to be convinced that is a totally different and a good thing??? Does not stand to reason for me. Doug's point about the penned deer with CWD not spreading to the other deer in the enclosure really stuck with me. To listen to some if we bait it will spread like wild fire and there will be no more deer left. Things I believe are true. Without bait less deer will be killed. Especially in bow season. That is the answer to this problem? NO

Full disclosure: Usually Ted can annoy me. I want my own land and to plant food plots to improve my hunting someday. 

Carry on


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Woodswhisperer said:


> ...........
> and the one thing we all agree with is if the dnr does something chances are it is the opposite of what should have been done. A perfect example is turkey Licenses. It now costs me the same price to shoot a Turkey as it does to buy one in the store. Absolutely ridiculous.


I disagree with the turkey license statement. The $15 for a turkey license is ridiculous ? Your logic is that since turkey is cheap to buy at the grocery store, then the hunting license should be priced below the cost of a pen raised bird ?

L & O


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

deepwoods said:


> I thought he was spot on. I struggle with the thought that someone putting bait out a few weekends a year is the death call for hunting when a farmer. foot plotter, etc.. puts crops out that draw deer (most of the year in some cases) to a single area for possibly decades or more. Then I am to be convinced that is a totally different and a good thing??? Does not stand to reason for me. Doug's point about the penned deer with CWD not spreading to the other deer in the enclosure really stuck with me. To listen to some if we bait it will spread like wild fire and there will be no more deer left. Things I believe are true. Without bait less deer will be killed. Especially in bow season. That is the answer to this problem? NO
> 
> Full disclosure: Usually Ted can annoy me. I want my own land and to plant food plots to improve my hunting someday.
> 
> Carry on


The enclosure where CWD started (Colorado in the 60's) had different results.


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

sureshot006 said:


> Yea I wasnt with him on that... the question though is "does it make a statistical difference?"
> 
> Ive never, ever, hunted a bait PILE. I think that practice is weird... and back when I baited i cant remember any nose to nose that was due to bait. It was always natural social interaction.


I could see it making a difference in certain situations, like northern Michigan where quality food sources are less abundant. Or certain types of bait like sugar beets. Regulating all those different situations would be a nightmare so it makes sense to take a blanket approach. However, adopting that strategy for a disease that’s not transmitted the same way as TB seems like an overreaction.


----------



## mustang72 (Feb 13, 2005)

Ted has some good points... but I still want bait to be illegal. My neighbor is out of control with the amount of beets he puts out and this hopefully will at least keep his baiting piles smaller so he has to scent the spot up every couple days to replenish the dozen spots. He miss read the 2 gal rule for meaning 2 trailers!


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> His exact words were “There is no correlation between baiting and feeding deer and the spread of ANY disease.”
> 
> That’s seems pretty cut and dry to me. Not much to take out of context. That comment is the exact opposite of what Doug said about reducing nose to nose contact to curb the spread of TB.


So then pass a law forbidding deer to have nose to nose contact. 



Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Old lund (Apr 20, 2016)

I think Ted is spot on deer are social creatures they sniff and lick each other and eat the fruit that falls off the trees and in farm fields year after year we will never stop that . I’ll say it again I’m not a baiter because I’m too lazy to haul that out but not against anyone who chooses to bait .
Jimmy is right also hunters need to stop there fighting among each other and start supporting each other , bait , crossbows , high power guns . Dose it really matter ? We all enjoy being out in the field so we should band together not your way is wrong if it’s not my way


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

FREEPOP said:


> The enclosure where CWD started (Colorado in the 60's) had different results.


Especially consider they used it as an expirament, specifically attempting to do that

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

swampbuck said:


> Especially consider they used it as an expirament, specifically attempting to do that
> 
> Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


I don't believe that they wanted it to return after they had cleaned everything, re-introduced animals back in and then they got it too.


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

mustang72 said:


> Ted has some good points... but I still want bait to be illegal. My neighbor is out of control with the amount of beets he puts out and this hopefully will at least keep his baiting piles smaller so he has to scent the spot up every couple days to replenish the dozen spots. He miss read the 2 gal rule for meaning 2 trailers!


This post is the reason there is a bait ban. As Mustang points out, the bait ban isn't as much about disease control for him as it is about his dislike of the practice of baiting. The DNR and NRC are the same exact way. The NRC/DNR is using CWD as a scapegoat to ban baiting not because of the sound science, or common sense as Ted pointed out, that shows it controls disease.

Proposal G said the NRC was supposed to make laws governing the taking of game based on sound science. Since Proposal G was passed the NRC has started inserting "Social Science" as justification for its actions. Social science was never mentioned when the proposal was passed, and is just vague, and ambiguous enough that they can insert just about anything they want in there in the name of social science and still be acting under the guise of Proposal G.

I firmly believe Proposal G needs to be repealed and re-written to define what types of science can be used when making the decisions that will govern the laws written governing the taking of game in our State. Social Science needs to be removed from consideration, or at least defined as to what is to be considered, not left as a catch all.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

stickbow shooter said:


> It does get old.


Jr trying to get your attention over and over doesn't count.


----------



## Dish7 (Apr 2, 2017)

swampbuck said:


> LOL, stay tuned
> 
> Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


I will. Not holding my breath though, lol.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Biggbear said:


> This post is the reason there is a bait ban. As Mustang points out, the bait ban isn't as much about disease control for him as it is about his dislike of the practice of baiting. The DNR and NRC are the same exact way. The NRC/DNR is using CWD as a scapegoat to ban baiting not because of the sound science, or common sense as Ted pointed out, that shows it controls disease.
> 
> Proposal G said the NRC was supposed to make laws governing the taking of game based on sound science. Since Proposal G was passed the NRC has started inserting "Social Science" as justification for its actions. Social science was never mentioned when the proposal was passed, and is just vague, and ambiguous enough that they can insert just about anything they want in there in the name of social science and still be acting under the guise of Proposal G.
> 
> I firmly believe Proposal G needs to be repealed and re-written to define what types of science can be used when making the decisions that will govern the laws written governing the taking of game in our State. Social Science needs to be removed from consideration, or at least defined as to what is to be considered, not left as a catch all.


I remember the discussions about Prop G on here and there were several opposing it. They believed that it would be possible to find any "science" you wanted to fit your agenda. 

They should now appropriately say "I told you so"


----------



## mustang72 (Feb 13, 2005)

Biggbear said:


> This post is the reason there is a bait ban. As Mustang points out, the bait ban isn't as much about disease control for him as it is about his dislike of the practice of baiting. The DNR and NRC are the same exact way. The NRC/DNR is using CWD as a scapegoat to ban baiting not because of the sound science, or common sense as Ted pointed out, that shows it controls disease.
> 
> Proposal G said the NRC was supposed to make laws governing the taking of game based on sound science. Since Proposal G was passed the NRC has started inserting "Social Science" as justification for its actions. Social science was never mentioned when the proposal was passed, and is just vague, and ambiguous enough that they can insert just about anything they want in there in the name of social science and still be acting under the guise of Proposal G.
> 
> I firmly believe Proposal G needs to be repealed and re-written to define what types of science can be used when making the decisions that will govern the laws written governing the taking of game in our State. Social Science needs to be removed from consideration, or at least defined as to what is to be considered, not left as a catch all.


 I agree BB, I'm not one to give a BS reason why I like or dislike a rule change.
If I was a public land hunter who lived 3+ hours from my hunting spot this ban is great, Now you don't have to worry about the deer changing their patterns 180 degrees from the last time you scouted because a local has put out a giant pile of bait. As far as CWD and baiting... Ted and others say baiting won't add to the spreading of the disease , well banning bait wont either and I like hunting without piles everywhere.


----------



## BucksandDucks (May 25, 2010)

FREEPOP said:


> I agree. Must be the old age catching up with him.
> 
> I have met him on more than one occasion and I can say that approaching him was never a pleasant experience for me. If/when I ever see him again, I'll just move on, in the opposite direction.


I have met him a couple times and never had a problem. The first time I was a 20 year old kid working third shift at a gas station in Gaylord. Ted came in around 2:00 am and I asked him if he was going hunting since it was the fall. He stood around and BS'd with a 20 year old nobody for around 25 minutes about hunting. I thought that was pretty cool of him.


----------



## Drake (Dec 29, 2000)

jr28schalm said:


> Would you want him as your neighbor?


No!

Sent from my Pixel using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

mustang72 said:


> Now you don't have to worry about the deer changing their patterns 180 degrees from the last time you scouted because a local has put out a giant pile of bait.


 I think you'll still worry because I dont think its going to change much.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

I think he just addressed the sentiments of the majority of Michigan hunters, concerning the ban on baiting.

This post is debatable


motdean said:


> 1. Ted was in no way a fan of "starve the beast" mentality for those that do not agree with particular deer management regulations. He still encouraged those to buy their licenses and get out in the field regardless.


First I do not think anyone would outright advocate starve the beast on a TV broadcast. Second if someone was for starve the beast he/she would use reverse psychology. Third he seem to ad factitious comments, like spend hundreds/thousands of dollars for lodging, food etc.

Who would spend hundreds and thousands if they were not geeked about going? Similar to planning a vacation or not. He also in the beginning expressed the decline of hunters in Wisconsin from this same response to banning bait. Is it not realistic to believe we will not have a similar response? Also Michigan had similar results the last time baiting was banned.

I think starve the beast is a personal decision. Similar to what I should shoot. Not advocating starve the beast but understand why some will not continue to buy licenses.

Hunting should be a personal experience. Just have a hard time justifying those who push for legislation to enforce their way of hunting. By restricting how and what you can shoot is the main reason for hunter attrition. This falls directly on our DNR and NRC and it's continuance.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

FREEPOP said:


> I remember the discussions about Prop G on here and there were several opposing it. They believed that it would be possible to find any "science" you wanted to fit your agenda.
> 
> They should now appropriately say "I told you so"


I think the Proposal was passed in the mid-90s. Are you talking about discussions here in the early years--maybe 2000-2005 ? If so, it was just hindsight and that's always perfect.

L & O


----------



## grapestomper (Jan 9, 2012)

Did you see Jimmy's face when Ted was bashing the DNR and the NRC.
He wanted no part of that. All he could say was ah ha.
Ted was spot on.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

I think that Ted hit the nail on the head with this one. For all the examples he gave in the interview; I have never believed that bait was a major factor in the spread of disease. 
We know 2 things for sure, increased population densities and dispersal ARE factors. 
Instead of an "APR" experiment, knowing what we know; a better experiment might have been to sell baiting permits for $20.00 to use single bite baits. If you do not check in a doe for the season of the permit ... you can't buy another for the next 3 years! 
<----<<<


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

jr28schalm said:


> Hmw puts does on a pedestal. Lol..


Does on pedestal=
Bucks on the wall


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Biggbear said:


> This post is the reason there is a bait ban. As Mustang points out, the bait ban isn't as much about disease control for him as it is about his dislike of the practice of baiting. The DNR and NRC are the same exact way. The NRC/DNR is using CWD as a scapegoat to ban baiting not because of the sound science, or common sense as Ted pointed out, that shows it controls disease.
> 
> Proposal G said the NRC was supposed to make laws governing the taking of game based on sound science. Since Proposal G was passed the NRC has started inserting "Social Science" as justification for its actions. Social science was never mentioned when the proposal was passed, and is just vague, and ambiguous enough that they can insert just about anything they want in there in the name of social science and still be acting under the guise of Proposal G.
> 
> I firmly believe Proposal G needs to be repealed and re-written to define what types of science can be used when making the decisions that will govern the laws written governing the taking of game in our State. Social Science needs to be removed from consideration, or at least defined as to what is to be considered, not left as a catch all.


Exactly, and the NRC needs a house cleaning to remove the special interests and prevent it happening again

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Dish7 said:


> I will. Not holding my breath though, lol.


I am not either, but an attempt is coming very soon.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Joe Archer said:


> If you do not check in a doe for the season of the permit ... you can't buy another for the next 3 years!
> <----<<<


I like that idea.


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

Joe Archer said:


> I think that Ted hit the nail on the head with this one. For all the examples he gave in the interview; I have never believed that bait was a major factor in the spread of disease.
> We know 2 things for sure, increased population densities and dispersal ARE factors.
> Instead of an "APR" experiment, knowing what we know; a better experiment might have been to sell baiting permits for $20.00 to use single bite baits. If you do not check in a doe for the season of the permit ... you can't buy another for the next 3 years!
> <----<<<


I like this proposal. Couple that with having to tag any male deer that is shot with a buck tag, and I think we have something.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

grapestomper said:


> Did you see Jimmy's face when Ted was bashing the DNR and the NRC.
> He wanted no part of that. All he could say was ah ha.
> Ted was spot on.


Because of his link to mucc

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

FREEPOP said:


> I don't believe that they wanted it to return after they had cleaned everything, re-introduced animals back in and then they got it too.


Not that they wanted it to, wanted to see if it would

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Liver and Onions said:


> I think the Proposal was passed in the mid-90s. Are you talking about discussions here in the early years--maybe 2000-2005 ? If so, it was just hindsight and that's always perfect.
> 
> L & O


It appears my memory failed me once again I remember having the discussion but it must not have been here.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Steve said:


> I like this proposal. Couple that with having to tag any male deer that is shot with a buck tag, and I think we have something.


How would that plan work where there are few antlerless permits? Imo, your plan just equals many untagged dead button bucks going to waste.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Steve said:


> ..................
> Couple that with having to tag any male deer that is shot with a buck tag, and I think we have something.


That will absolutely never fly and for a couple of good reasons. Clear that one from your list.

L & O


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

Hunters Edge said:


> I think he just addressed the sentiments of the majority of Michigan hunters, concerning the ban on baiting.
> 
> This post is debatable
> 
> ...



Sorry if I misled. It was not a quote of his. He simply encouraged deer hunters to continue to buy their licenses and do their thing despite not agreeing with certain regulations.

The "starve the beast" came from an old thread on this website.....


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

I also wonder.....and I am opening Pandora's box for the sake of curiosity.....

Does it matter if it is 2 gallons or 2 tons then?


----------



## MISTURN3 (Jan 3, 2012)

quite a bit of difference with what and how many it would/could attract.....


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

motdean said:


> Sorry if I misled. It was not a quote of his. He simply encouraged deer hunters to continue to buy their licenses and do their thing despite not agreeing with certain regulations.
> 
> The "starve the beast" came from an old thread on this website.....


Did he? Especially with his next breath also advising to spend hundreds in lodging and food etc.? Was it sincere or factitious? If he was encouraging deer hunters to continue buying licenses why add the additional cost or expendatures to do so?

Even if he was sincere which I am highly doubtful with the other comments of additional spending. I doubt it will curb the attrition until baiting is either reinstated or banned statewide. Including banning the use for sharpshooters if in fact they perceive baiting/feeding deer spreads CWD.

I personally believe it has nothing to do with disease and should be rescinded which is what Mr. Nugent expressed.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

motdean said:


> I also wonder.....and I am opening Pandora's box for the sake of curiosity.....
> 
> Does it matter if it is 2 gallons or 2 tons then?


I believe it would. I also believe that spreading bait out is a mistake. All it does is encourage deer to walk on the bait and crap on it. If you dump it in a small pile tight up to a tree, stump or rock, that doesn't happen. I swear that these rules are made up by guys that have never done it.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

UnknwnBanditRowdyTucoRojo said:


> I didn't see Russ and Doug. I'll take your word for it.
> 
> Anyone else on Russ and Doug?


Ted likes to use the logic of the absurd arguments to support his points. By making his illustrations in at the far extreme of the panorama, he tries to diminish the logic of the point he is attempting to refute. Yes, there is a difference between the apples that fall from an apple tree that deer consume on a point by point basis and bait piles of those same apples transported and concentrated in optimal deer habitat, in terms of disease spread risk. One, Unky Ted's extrapolation number of apple trees includes large chunks of geography where, via testing, no CWD has currently been detected. So, now let's focus on the CWD management zone where, via baiting those same apples are now spread, point-by-point far more uniformly across the landscape to concentrate and aggregate deer. These bait piles tend to be used, year after year on private lands, as well as many sites on public lands. By increasing the points of deer concentration within the management zone via baiting and repeating the practice year-after-year, nose-to-nose contact and fecal/oral material contact is enhanced beyond the social grooming Ted focuses on as a natural mechanism, which cannot be diminished. But, it can be diminished... by reducing deer density via harvest. Ted's argument is; if you can't reduce nose-to-nose contact via social grooming within doe and buck bands, or aggregations while foraging naturally, managers should make no effort to impact deer contact via means they can control- herd density reductions on the landscape and elimination of bait sights. Dead deer don't groom each other, and social band structure is markedly altered via herd density reduction. AS an Self-appointed EXPERT, Super Patriot, RED White and Blue bleeding, Bill of Rights defending self-appointed defender of the Common Man and his values...he kinda left out the greater over-riding risk argument, that, in many of the in vitro studies performed that attempt to document the mechanisms of cross-species transfer of infectious CWD positive prions, the resulting transferred infectious prions often have altered amino acid sequences compared to the original particle. Conversion of healthy prion proteins to miss-folded infectious prions involves formation of a "steric zipper array" which involves getting a sequentially better meshing of the two adjacent amino acid chain "teeth". Organisms that possess this amino acid array in the right sections of the prion proteins are deemed universal donors...the Pandora's Box that bring this TSE closer, much closer to being directly transmissible to Man.

I thought it was quite interesting that Dough Roberts spent a lengthy interval discussing how important it is to manage Bovine TB via reduction in nose-to-nose contact and herd aggregation mechanisms, yet Ted totally dismissed these efforts as an effective means of deer disease control. Score one for Doug Roberts. I'll give him another point for raising the zip code study done of Wisconsin based deer kills within their CWD zone, which tracked the origin zip codes of the participating hunters through a specific time interval. A subset of these folks took their deer carcasses home, processed them and then tossed them in the garbage, dumpster, landfill, landscape, back forty, side-of-road, etc. likely contributing to disease spread. Mr. Roberts opted to mention that no CWD infected animals showed up in concentrated testing of the ranched deer sites in follow-up. Then he stated that the disease incidence is lower in farmed deer than wild deer in Michigan. Odd. When I take the three CWD positive deer found in captive herds and then divide that by the total herd population value at those high fence sites, I come up with a bigger number that the incidence rate determined within the management zone divided by the total number of wild deer tested to date. Mr. Roberts lauded the deer ranching industry for its compliance and support of CWD management and science research, yet he never mentioned that it was a captive cervid facility that was the origin site for chronic wasting disease's discovery. Yes, it was a Federal facility in Colorado where initial incidence was first documented. He also failed to mention the escape rate data from the Michigan Agriculture Dept.'s assessment of facilities within the state done recently.

I found it interesting that he focused on the humic acid story: but never mentioned that in vivo and in vitro studies indicate that gastric acids readily degrade these when fed orally.

I had a chance to speak directly with a MDNR Wildlife Biologist in attendance at the NRC meeting yesterday in Marquette who does the site inspections for the MDNR and MiDept. of Agriculture on facilities here in the U.P. His summary statement was: some are relatively well run, others are very poorly run. The one commonality though is that site inspections I do routinely document that same issues that do not get addresses or rectified to bring them into compliance, some of these noted over multi-year intervals. The legislature has no desire to lean on Dept. of Agriculture personnel to put teeth in their enforcement.

One other very interesting observation came out of the GPS radio collar preliminary data: several radio collared deer, bucks and does, made random movements well outside the management area outside of the breeding season, returning to their territories after varying intervals. 

CWD incidence is being tracked at the 1/4 section level. The two pronged management effort is designed to reduce deer concentrations on a density dependent level uniformly, which won't happen in a one time effort since not every doe and buck band will have the same proportion on animals removed. So, this will have to be done repeatedly in concert with attempting to diminish the number of potential points of direct contact over the management interval via.

So, do you just do nothing, or make a minimal effort like several of the states that still allow baiting that Ted pointed out and just monitor the disease...or act aggressively to hold it in check. Michigan has determined that a 1% incidence is indicative of established disease status. The NRC and Wildlife Division and shooting(literally) to hold the incidence to around one tenth of that until a vaccine of treatment is discovered.

There is a ct-Quick test that is being developed for dispersal to State wildlife management personnel that is quite promising, with a very low false positive rate. IF the Federal reference in Iowa doesn't get this as well, many states will be faced with a potentially faced with the dilemma of having nor means of verifying these data.

Several folks mentioned that Governor Scottt Walker's administration has ham-strung CWD management in Wisconsin. One Wildlife Manager I spoke to said only ten deer on the Wisconsin side of the border from the Wacedah positive site in the U.P., have been tested to date...contrast that with the Michigan value of over six hundred animals.

Is Baiting in the Bill of Rights? No? So, making a comparison of all the States that still allow it underscores what point, since it is a State-by.-State statute. An SCI biological adviser I know mentioned that he has heard that the commercial whitetail industry is very concerned that Canada may pass a baiting ban for whitetails, particularly since their focus is on old age class bucks.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

Cork Dust said:


> Ted ..........
> ...........


Could you write a CliffsNotes version of your post ? 

L & O


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Justin said:


> I believe it would. I also believe that spreading bait out is a mistake. All it does is encourage deer to walk on the bait and crap on it. If you dump it in a small pile tight up to a tree, stump or rock, that doesn't happen. I swear that these rules are made up by guys that have never done it.


 free range forage and food plots are then worse than bait pile by that logic.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Liver and Onions said:


> Could you write a CliffsNotes version of your post ?
> 
> L & O


Your're more than happy to listen to Ted Nugent do his per-usual I am going to expound until I use up all the oxygen in the room so no one can offer a counter-argument, so, put some time in and read it.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Was the federal facility in Colorado the "petri dish" that created a C.W.D. prion that proved infectious to wild (non captive and different specie) cervids?

IF such leanings are ingrained in biologists and science , then avoiding cervid concentrations to avoid greater contagion in their opinions makes more sense.

Personally I won't bank on the concepts of severe reductions of populations or banning bait will stop C.W.D. spread. Yes it will change the number of potential positive test results. Tests of deer , not habitat soils though. Are confirmed cases in deer followed by site soil samples where deer were removed from? Including bait sites?

My doubting C.W.D. case reduction or slowing is mostly due to hop scotch type detection's by locale/region..
Either the spread has leapfrogged (regardless of mechanism) , or testing has failed to keep pace with spread. A new region of positives offsets reduction elsewhere , IF spread is the measure of success or failure to control or contain C.W.D..

Living near a county border (without an isolating physical buffer) where deer pass back and forth , why is one county a hot spot , and the other presenting no detected cases?


----------



## November Sunrise (Jan 12, 2006)

Cork Dust said:


> AS an Self-appointed EXPERT, Super Patriot, RED White and Blue bleeding, Bill of Rights defending self-appointed defender of the Common Man and his values...he kinda left out the greater over-riding risk argument


Your post Cork Dust was comprehensive and thoughtful and so forgive me for snagging just a snippet of it for commentary.

I really like the fact that you pinpointed "the self appointed expert" tendency. One of the challenges of being a self-appointed expert is it closes a person's mind to the possibility that they actually don't know nearly as much as they imagine themselves as knowing. It's next to impossible for a person to develop true expertise on a topic if the individual imagines themselves to already know all there is to know. Nugent is intelligent and sometimes offers some good insight but also often has the tendency to get in well over his head due to not grasping topics nearly as well as he imagines himself to.


----------



## Rowdy Bandit (Mar 22, 2016)

Cork Dust said:


> Ted likes to use the logic of the absurd arguments to support his points. By making his illustrations in at the far extreme of the panorama, he tries to diminish the logic of the point he is attempting to refute. Yes, there is a difference between the apples that fall from an apple tree that deer consume on a point by point basis and bait piles of those same apples transported and concentrated in optimal deer habitat, in terms of disease spread risk. One, Unky Ted's extrapolation number of apple trees includes large chunks of geography where, via testing, no CWD has currently been detected. So, now let's focus on the CWD management zone where, via baiting those same apples are now spread, point-by-point far more uniformly across the landscape to concentrate and aggregate deer. These bait piles tend to be used, year after year on private lands, as well as many sites on public lands. By increasing the points of deer concentration within the management zone via baiting and repeating the practice year-after-year, nose-to-nose contact and fecal/oral material contact is enhanced beyond the social grooming Ted focuses on as a natural mechanism, which cannot be diminished. But, it can be diminished... by reducing deer density via harvest. Ted's argument is; if you can't reduce nose-to-nose contact via social grooming within doe and buck bands, or aggregations while foraging naturally, managers should make no effort to impact deer contact via means they can control- herd density reductions on the landscape and elimination of bait sights. Dead deer don't groom each other, and social band structure is markedly altered via herd density reduction. AS an Self-appointed EXPERT, Super Patriot, RED White and Blue bleeding, Bill of Rights defending self-appointed defender of the Common Man and his values...he kinda left out the greater over-riding risk argument, that, in many of the in vitro studies performed that attempt to document the mechanisms of cross-species transfer of infectious CWD positive prions, the resulting transferred infectious prions often have altered amino acid sequences compared to the original particle. Conversion of healthy prion proteins to miss-folded infectious prions involves formation of a "steric zipper array" which involves getting a sequentially better meshing of the two adjacent amino acid chain "teeth". Organisms that possess this amino acid array in the right sections of the prion proteins are deemed universal donors...the Pandora's Box that bring this TSE closer, much closer to being directly transmissible to Man.
> 
> I thought it was quite interesting that Dough Roberts spent a lengthy interval discussing how important it is to manage Bovine TB via reduction in nose-to-nose contact and herd aggregation mechanisms, yet Ted totally dismissed these efforts as an effective means of deer disease control. Score one for Doug Roberts. I'll give him another point for raising the zip code study done of Wisconsin based deer kills within their CWD zone, which tracked the origin zip codes of the participating hunters through a specific time interval. A subset of these folks took their deer carcasses home, processed them and then tossed them in the garbage, dumpster, landfill, landscape, back forty, side-of-road, etc. likely contributing to disease spread. Mr. Roberts opted to mention that no CWD infected animals showed up in concentrated testing of the ranched deer sites in follow-up. Then he stated that the disease incidence is lower in farmed deer than wild deer in Michigan. Odd. When I take the three CWD positive deer found in captive herds and then divide that by the total herd population value at those high fence sites, I come up with a bigger number that the incidence rate determined within the management zone divided by the total number of wild deer tested to date. Mr. Roberts lauded the deer ranching industry for its compliance and support of CWD management and science research, yet he never mentioned that it was a captive cervid facility that was the origin site for chronic wasting disease's discovery. Yes, it was a Federal facility in Colorado where initial incidence was first documented. He also failed to mention the escape rate data from the Michigan Agriculture Dept.'s assessment of facilities within the state done recently.
> 
> ...


Funny, I was just thinking the same thing. 

That's, in part, why I wrote "within regulations". The other part is idc if someone does that.

I see it similarly as I do people who argue against global warming by saying, 'haha look at the snow today'.

I never much like hearing Ted talk on his opinions. I just sit there thinking, "alright alright now, shut up and play Wang Dang". Then say 'where on Earth do I want to be but Michigan especially in October and November', I'm 100% there already.


----------



## Wild Thing (Mar 19, 2010)

Cork Dust said:


> Ted likes to use the logic of the absurd arguments to support his points. By making his illustrations in at the far extreme of the panorama, he tries to diminish the logic of the point he is attempting to refute. Yes, there is a difference between the apples that fall from an apple tree that deer consume on a point by point basis and bait piles of those same apples transported and concentrated in optimal deer habitat, in terms of disease spread risk. One, Unky Ted's extrapolation number of apple trees includes large chunks of geography where, via testing, no CWD has currently been detected. So, now let's focus on the CWD management zone where, via baiting those same apples are now spread, point-by-point far more uniformly across the landscape to concentrate and aggregate deer. These bait piles tend to be used, year after year on private lands, as well as many sites on public lands. By increasing the points of deer concentration within the management zone via baiting and repeating the practice year-after-year, nose-to-nose contact and fecal/oral material contact is enhanced beyond the social grooming Ted focuses on as a natural mechanism, which cannot be diminished. But, it can be diminished... by reducing deer density via harvest. Ted's argument is; if you can't reduce nose-to-nose contact via social grooming within doe and buck bands, or aggregations while foraging naturally, managers should make no effort to impact deer contact via means they can control- herd density reductions on the landscape and elimination of bait sights. Dead deer don't groom each other, and social band structure is markedly altered via herd density reduction. AS an Self-appointed EXPERT, Super Patriot, RED White and Blue bleeding, Bill of Rights defending self-appointed defender of the Common Man and his values...he kinda left out the greater over-riding risk argument, that, in many of the in vitro studies performed that attempt to document the mechanisms of cross-species transfer of infectious CWD positive prions, the resulting transferred infectious prions often have altered amino acid sequences compared to the original particle. Conversion of healthy prion proteins to miss-folded infectious prions involves formation of a "steric zipper array" which involves getting a sequentially better meshing of the two adjacent amino acid chain "teeth". Organisms that possess this amino acid array in the right sections of the prion proteins are deemed universal donors...the Pandora's Box that bring this TSE closer, much closer to being directly transmissible to Man.
> 
> I thought it was quite interesting that Dough Roberts spent a lengthy interval discussing how important it is to manage Bovine TB via reduction in nose-to-nose contact and herd aggregation mechanisms, yet Ted totally dismissed these efforts as an effective means of deer disease control. Score one for Doug Roberts. I'll give him another point for raising the zip code study done of Wisconsin based deer kills within their CWD zone, which tracked the origin zip codes of the participating hunters through a specific time interval. A subset of these folks took their deer carcasses home, processed them and then tossed them in the garbage, dumpster, landfill, landscape, back forty, side-of-road, etc. likely contributing to disease spread. Mr. Roberts opted to mention that no CWD infected animals showed up in concentrated testing of the ranched deer sites in follow-up. Then he stated that the disease incidence is lower in farmed deer than wild deer in Michigan. Odd. When I take the three CWD positive deer found in captive herds and then divide that by the total herd population value at those high fence sites, I come up with a bigger number that the incidence rate determined within the management zone divided by the total number of wild deer tested to date. Mr. Roberts lauded the deer ranching industry for its compliance and support of CWD management and science research, yet he never mentioned that it was a captive cervid facility that was the origin site for chronic wasting disease's discovery. Yes, it was a Federal facility in Colorado where initial incidence was first documented. He also failed to mention the escape rate data from the Michigan Agriculture Dept.'s assessment of facilities within the state done recently.
> 
> ...


Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective of the issue with us Cork Dust.

Was there any mention at the meeting, or are you aware of any further movement outside of the Dickinson County Core Surveillance area by the GPS collared deer? I know at the last "Listening Session" up here in July, Terry Minzey mentioned that up to that point there had been 2 collared deer which had already migrated out of the zone - a buck, down to the Pembine, WI area, and a doe somewhere up north of Sagola.

By contrast, the deer they trapped and collared on my property seem to be homebodies. I've collected nearly 400 trail cam photos of them so far.

Not trying to hijack the thread but I think this is at least somewhat relative to the CWD discussion. Thanks.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

UnknwnBanditRowdyTucoRojo said:


> Funny, I was just thinking the same thing.
> 
> That's, in part, why I wrote "within regulations". The other part is idc if someone does that.
> 
> ...


Well, then Ted read that speech Davey Crockett made to the Tenn. legislature where he closed by saying: You can all go to h$$$, I'm goin' to Texas! Crockett died at the Alamo. Ted skulked back to Michigan...


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Cork Dust said:


> By increasing the points of deer concentration within the management zone via baiting and repeating the practice year-after-year, nose-to-nose contact and fecal/oral material contact is enhanced beyond the social grooming Ted focuses on as a natural mechanism, which cannot be diminished. But, it can be diminished... by reducing deer density via harvest.


LOL How are you reducing deer density, if hunters quit hunting? How is baiting repeatedly year after year different than those apples falling from the apple tree year after year? The only difference is and would be in the equation is if hunters are actively reducing the herd by baiting/hunting/harvesting deer. Take away baiting is reducing hunters which reduce harvest results. Which does not meet the objective of reducing deer density/population.

Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Nugent explicitly stated no scientific evidence that baiting increases the spread of CWD. Especially if one used baiting in the study to kill or reduce deer density thus helping to reduce spread of CWD.

Pandora's box is not here and fear is not an option to be used for anyone to make regulation changes. Especially if these are not scientifically substantiated. CWD has been present in US for 50 years and not one case of it effecting humans naturally has been attributed or proven in that time. Could it in the future, but we could also be hit with an asteroid, should we change regulations because of that probability?


----------



## Rowdy Bandit (Mar 22, 2016)

What happened to 'waif'? lol


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Wild Thing said:


> Thank you for taking the time to share your perspective of the issue with us Cork Dust.
> 
> Was there any mention at the meeting, or are you aware of any further movement outside of the Dickinson County Core Surveillance area by the GPS collared deer? I know at the last "Listening Session" up here in July, Terry Minzey mentioned that up to that point there had been 2 collared deer which had already migrated out of the zone - a buck, down to the Pembine, WI area, and a doe somewhere up north of Sagola.
> 
> ...


Well, Terry touched on those collared deer movements. He also mentioned other telemetry studies he has been involved in previously, with shorter range receiver devices. He said, "When we couldn't get a signal for a chunk of time, we blamed the equipment, now, I want to rethink that in light of this evidence...maybe those deer were outside the range of the receiver."

I suspect that deer that emigrate to an area, bucks and does, still are implanted, with the innate ability to "know" where they originated, moving back there occasionally. The larger question is: What triggered the movement?


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

November Sunrise said:


> Your post Cork Dust was comprehensive and thoughtful and so forgive me for snagging just a snippet of it for commentary.
> 
> I really like the fact that you pinpointed "the self appointed expert" tendency. One of the challenges of being a self-appointed expert is it closes a person's mind to the possibility that they actually don't know nearly as much as they imagine themselves as knowing. It's next to impossible for a person to develop true expertise on a topic if the individual imagines themselves to already know all there is to know. Nugent is intelligent and sometimes offers some good insight but also often has the tendency to get in well over his head due to not grasping topics nearly as well as he imagines himself to.


I have been having a background conversation with Jimmy Gretzinger, who is actually very well intentioned in his efforts to get several points of view. My argument to him is that they all should be obligate to have a science background to understand fully that, CWD infectious prions don't spread via only one mechanism like a virus or a infectious bacterium, but by multiple pathways, each with a different likelihood of being the infective agent in the spread of this TSE. Why Doug Roberts analogy to Bovine TB spread was both inappropriate and of little value.

Well, the "quick and dirty" response would have been to co-opt Terrible Ted's own words: I challenge Ted Nugent to provide me with one white paper, one study (although the scientific method would argue for two studies that used identical treatments to corroborate each other for initial proof of a hypothesis.) that supports his approach to CWD management, do nothing, but monitor the disease! Dr. Koch, Dan Infalt, etc. should be included in this challenge.

One point of consideration: IF this disease becomes common on the landscape, what happens to the North American Conservation Model where sportsman who hunt a species generally foot the habitat preservation and enhancement of that species? Behind the scenes, this is a VERY hotly debated topic in SCI and Boone and Crockett, NWF, etc.


----------



## Deerslayer032187 (Feb 24, 2015)

Cork Dust said:


> Ted likes to use the logic of the absurd arguments to support his points. By making his illustrations in at the far extreme of the panorama, he tries to diminish the logic of the point he is attempting to refute. Yes, there is a difference between the apples that fall from an apple tree that deer consume on a point by point basis and bait piles of those same apples transported and concentrated in optimal deer habitat, in terms of disease spread risk. One, Unky Ted's extrapolation number of apple trees includes large chunks of geography where, via testing, no CWD has currently been detected. So, now let's focus on the CWD management zone where, via baiting those same apples are now spread, point-by-point far more uniformly across the landscape to concentrate and aggregate deer. These bait piles tend to be used, year after year on private lands, as well as many sites on public lands. By increasing the points of deer concentration within the management zone via baiting and repeating the practice year-after-year, nose-to-nose contact and fecal/oral material contact is enhanced beyond the social grooming Ted focuses on as a natural mechanism, which cannot be diminished. But, it can be diminished... by reducing deer density via harvest. Ted's argument is; if you can't reduce nose-to-nose contact via social grooming within doe and buck bands, or aggregations while foraging naturally, managers should make no effort to impact deer contact via means they can control- herd density reductions on the landscape and elimination of bait sights. Dead deer don't groom each other, and social band structure is markedly altered via herd density reduction. AS an Self-appointed EXPERT, Super Patriot, RED White and Blue bleeding, Bill of Rights defending self-appointed defender of the Common Man and his values...he kinda left out the greater over-riding risk argument, that, in many of the in vitro studies performed that attempt to document the mechanisms of cross-species transfer of infectious CWD positive prions, the resulting transferred infectious prions often have altered amino acid sequences compared to the original particle. Conversion of healthy prion proteins to miss-folded infectious prions involves formation of a "steric zipper array" which involves getting a sequentially better meshing of the two adjacent amino acid chain "teeth". Organisms that possess this amino acid array in the right sections of the prion proteins are deemed universal donors...the Pandora's Box that bring this TSE closer, much closer to being directly transmissible to Man.
> 
> I thought it was quite interesting that Dough Roberts spent a lengthy interval discussing how important it is to manage Bovine TB via reduction in nose-to-nose contact and herd aggregation mechanisms, yet Ted totally dismissed these efforts as an effective means of deer disease control. Score one for Doug Roberts. I'll give him another point for raising the zip code study done of Wisconsin based deer kills within their CWD zone, which tracked the origin zip codes of the participating hunters through a specific time interval. A subset of these folks took their deer carcasses home, processed them and then tossed them in the garbage, dumpster, landfill, landscape, back forty, side-of-road, etc. likely contributing to disease spread. Mr. Roberts opted to mention that no CWD infected animals showed up in concentrated testing of the ranched deer sites in follow-up. Then he stated that the disease incidence is lower in farmed deer than wild deer in Michigan. Odd. When I take the three CWD positive deer found in captive herds and then divide that by the total herd population value at those high fence sites, I come up with a bigger number that the incidence rate determined within the management zone divided by the total number of wild deer tested to date. Mr. Roberts lauded the deer ranching industry for its compliance and support of CWD management and science research, yet he never mentioned that it was a captive cervid facility that was the origin site for chronic wasting disease's discovery. Yes, it was a Federal facility in Colorado where initial incidence was first documented. He also failed to mention the escape rate data from the Michigan Agriculture Dept.'s assessment of facilities within the state done recently.
> 
> ...


If Nugent commenting on CWD got you this upset to the point that you'd post a novel, this should do the trick too....TRUMP/NUGENT 2020


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> LOL How are you reducing deer density, if hunters quit hunting? How is baiting repeatedly year after year different than those apples falling from the apple tree year after year? The only difference is and would be in the equation is if hunters are actively reducing the herd by baiting/hunting/harvesting deer. Take away baiting is reducing hunters which reduce harvest results. Which does not meet the objective of reducing deer density/population.
> 
> Both Mr. Roberts and Mr. Nugent explicitly stated no scientific evidence that baiting increases the spread of CWD. Especially if one used baiting in the study to kill or reduce deer density thus helping to reduce spread of CWD.
> 
> Pandora's box is not here and fear is not an option to be used for anyone to make regulation changes. Especially if these are not scientifically substantiated. CWD has been present in US for 50 years and not one case of it effecting humans naturally has been attributed or proven in that time. Could it in the future, but we could also be hit with an asteroid, should we change regulations because of that probability?


There was an avian virus that, despite all the evidence to the contrary that viruses are species specific, jumped to Man in the early nineteen hundreds, killing millions world-wide.

Actually, there are documented studies identifying universal donor species already. Scrapies is thought to be the encephalopathy origin of CWD. Another TSE causes mad cow disease, which already resulted in deaths in the UK. HIV did not exist... Multiple drug resistant microbes did not exist fifty years ago.

I see, so there will be wholesale refusal to purchase a license and hunt. If I had your ability to see into the future, I would be picking Lottery numbers over predicting deer hunter fallout rates with it.

Let's throw out a different sweeping blanket pronouncement. I am quite certain the folks who will not buy a license and hunt because they can't legally bait, shoot very few deer to begin with.

The cornerstone of statistics: absence of evidence is not definitive evidence of absence. Find a study that addresses CWD spread via long-term baiting on the landscape while hunting a deer population that has a large enough N value to be exposed to statistical analysis. Get back to me when you find that data...

"How is baiting repeatedly year after year different than those apples falling from the apple tree year after year?" *Think about it... The apples from that individual tree fall in the same place year after year, deer forty miles away don't congregate there to feed. UNLESS they get picked and then dispersed to multiple sites as bait covering who knows what proportion of the deer habitat, concentrating deer at each site!*


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Deerslayer032187 said:


> If Nugent commenting on CWD got you this upset to the point that you'd post a novel, this should do the trick too....TRUMP/NUGENT 2020


I would love to see that match, two egoists fighting for the microphone at each podium...now, go wrap youself in the flag.

Did you catch this one: John Bolton got fired because he wanted to Nuke North Korea, while Donald Trump wanted to BE North Korea.


----------



## Rowdy Bandit (Mar 22, 2016)

Cork Dust said:


> Your're more than happy to listen to Ted Nugent do his per-usual I am going to expound until I use up all the oxygen in the room so no one can offer a counter-argument, so, put some time in and read it.


Counter argument -

You can type all you want here, the detail and minutiae on the subject until the cows come home. While I completely agree knowledge and data is required to solve problems, you will solve nothing here.

For example: On subjects I knew better, I have watched individuals, who were supposedly more expert than I, talk about data and create studies, spend years of their salt on the companies dime on methods of solving a problem where there own data showed they were not even providing anything close to a positive result; their repeated tests were a complete waste and not 'a blip on the radar'. It was a fairly complex problem and required required some broad knowledge and also expertise to touch. In brief, I informed them that their efforts were orders of magnitude below the most remote possibility of solving the problem, but I was ignored. Then I went and had my ideas patented, and developed a system the company implemented, which not only solved several technical problems but also went made the company a ton of money and paid the salaries of hundreds of people for years.

My point? Well, I already wrote it. You will solve nothing on this venue.

... and you've now posted your opinion of Ted Nugent on this thread multiple times.

Quit the hijackings, start another thread in the whitetail disease forum.

Happy hunting.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

UnknwnBanditRowdyTucoRojo said:


> Counter argument -
> 
> You can type all you want here, the detail and minutiae on the subject until the cows come home. While I completely agree knowledge and data is required to solve problems, you will solve nothing here.
> 
> ...


And I paved the way for the formation of the Great Lakes Fishery Trust via mine and four other's efforts, blood, sweat and tears.
Well that, too, was a completely self-congratulatory... as well as pointless paragraph!

What ever is solved on this forum on any subject?

Not trying to solve anything, but I am willing and obligated to offer a defense of the MDNR's management plan, since it is both rational and carries a potential for success in diminishing disease spread.

Gosh, and here I thought that the discussion theme and subject were: Did Ted Nugent and Mr. Roberts offer any valid argument against attempting to minimize disease spread via cessation of baiting and density dependent herd reductions. HMMM...

So, If I go post in the whitetail disease forum threads, on a de facto basis I underscore your argument that this thread is not about the validity of a scientific approach to disease management, but one based on emotionalism and a "I gotta get mine!" mentality...?


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

UnknwnBanditRowdyTucoRojo said:


> What happened to 'waif'? lol


Something he ate from a congregating feeding site upset him..
Shrimp were suspect but not proven.... As usual.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Cork Dust said:


> And I paved the way for the formation of the Great Lakes Fishery Trust via mine and four other's efforts, blood, sweat and tears.
> Well that, too, was a completely self-congratulatory... as well as pointless paragraph!
> 
> What ever is solved on this forum on any subject?
> ...


I think the analogy being missed is along the lines of; "What is the difference between planting an apple tree, to just supplying a bushel of apples here and there"? 
Theoretically, the tree will congregate deer in an area for much longer than a single bushel or two. 
<----<<<


----------



## Rowdy Bandit (Mar 22, 2016)

Waif said:


> Something he ate from a congregating feeding site upset him..
> Shrimp were suspect but not proven.... As usual.


Sorry. I hate when that happens.



Cork Dust said:


> And I paved the way for the formation of the Great Lakes Fishery Trust via mine and four other's efforts, blood, sweat and tears.
> Well that, too, was a completely self-congratulatory... as well as pointless paragraph!
> 
> What ever is solved on this forum on any subject?
> ...


Waif, Dust, sorry to hear that. Dust, You should've read the OP for the theme and subject.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Joe Archer said:


> I think the analogy being missed is along the lines of; "What is the difference between planting an apple tree, to just supplying a bushel of apples here and there"?
> Theoretically, the tree will congregate deer in an area for much longer than a single bushel or two.
> <----<<<


Well, when you document that apple tree planting is ocurring at the rate and to the extent that bait dispersal by the bushel is happening, you go the first step toward credence in that analogy. But, you leave out that, once the apple tree gets planted, several years of careful and thoughtful propagation go by prior it bearing fruit, unlike the corresponding rate of apple dispersal via baiting.

Eventually, the tree WILL congregate deer, if it survives disease and browsing by those same deer.

Early this morning, was out scouting in the rain prior bow opener. I walked-up a stream bed that cut a deep valley through the surrounding drumlins. I had hoped to use this water course as a way in to a stand, since it wasn't chocked-full with downed timber and relatively easy to negotiate in the dark quietly, I got into the clear-cut I had been scouting and eventually hit the "Interstate of deer travel" stream deer crossing. I cut up the bank to the south and the run petered out in the clear-cut brush quickly. I went north and hit three forks, one really strongly tracked-up, which I follow about another hundred yards to an apple pile that was fourteen feet across with a shingle roofed blind elevated by treated fourXfours. This is on CFR land outside Marquette. Some one had to drive a generator in here to build this blind.

COs have the GPS coordinates now...


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

UnknwnBanditRowdyTucoRojo said:


> Sorry. I hate when that happens.
> 
> 
> Waif, Dust, sorry to hear that. Dust, You should've read the OP for the theme and subject.


I did.

I also send rebuttals the self congratulatory "opionites" on Fox News, just to make sure they get reminded that, despite all efforts to skew the subject and argument to their preconceptions, there is a counter-argument as well that is supportable.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Cork Dust said:


> Well, when you document that apple tree planting is ocurring at the rate and to the extent that bait dispersal by the bushel is happening, you go the first step toward credence in that analogy. But, you leave out that, once the apple tree gets planted, several years of careful and thoughtful propagation go by prior it bearing fruit, unlike the corresponding rate of apple dispersal via baiting.
> 
> Eventually, the tree WILL congregate deer, if it survives disease and browsing by those same deer.
> 
> ...


Another point that you may be missing, or misrepresenting, is the implied desire to do nothing. I think most understand the seriousness of the disease. However, the point made in the interview was that there is no scientific evidence to support bait promoting the spread of CWD, or better stated, that banning bait will slow the spread.
To take it a bit further and demonstrate the bias displayed by the DNR/NRC that Ted was referring to you have to look no further than their initial summary of the guiding principles drawn from the best science. They write
_"Management practices that increase biological carrying capacity (*such as supplemental feeding by humans)* may cause CWD to persist and spread..._
They just threw in the part in bold! The research article that they include in their references does not go past the biological carrying capacity conclusion, and makes no mention whatsoever of "supplemental feeding".
It should have been clear from day one that baiting was going to be the sacrificial lamb that it has become.
<----<<<


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Cork Dust said:


> Well, when you document that apple tree planting is ocurring at the rate and to the extent that bait dispersal by the bushel is happening, you go the first step toward credence in that analogy. But, you leave out that, once the apple tree gets planted, several years of careful and thoughtful propagation go by prior it bearing fruit, unlike the corresponding rate of apple dispersal via baiting


The point you left out is that apple tree will disperse over a bushel for years. Approximately 40 years, far longer than most hunters hunt on the same parcel and in some cases out living the hunter. It represents how silly or stupid a ban on baiting actually is in an attempt to decrease the spread of CWD. That's not even considering an oak tree 100 years or a beechnut lasting 300 years.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Joe Archer said:


> Another point that you may be missing, or misrepresenting, is the implied desire to do nothing. I think most understand the seriousness of the disease. However, the point made in the interview was that there is no scientific evidence to support bait promoting the spread of CWD, or better stated, that banning bait will slow the spread.
> To take it a bit further and demonstrate the bias displayed by the DNR/NRC that Ted was referring to you have to look no further than their initial summary of the guiding principles drawn from the best science. They write
> _"Management practices that increase biological carrying capacity (*such as supplemental feeding by humans)* may cause CWD to persist and spread..._
> They just threw in the part inn bold! The research article that they include in their references does not go bast the biological carrying capacity conclusion, and makes no mention whatsoever of "supplemental feeding".
> ...


 Joe, How many times have I read the statement that bait, food plots, feeding for viewing and supplemental feeding are beneficial AND necessary to carry the desirable number of deer through a Michigan winter, EVEN when that chunk of Michigan is southern Michigan? What is the converse of those many statements? Forage supplementation is necessary to expand carrying capacity of the existing deer habitat. 

I serve on the U.P. Habitat Work Group, formerly the UP Winter Habitat work Group, I have had to jump up and down repeatedly to get the NRC to require elevated food site in supplemental feeding programs up here, even after the CWD positive deer in Waucedah. So, yes, there is inconsistency.

If you recall, Doug Roberts made the point that one reason he feels he has not had a CWD issue on is property is that he uses elevated feed stations and cleans them routinely...apparently of saliva as well!


----------



## ratherboutside (Mar 19, 2010)

Hunters Edge said:


> The point you left out is that apple tree will disperse over a bushel for years. Approximately 40 years, far longer than most hunters hunt on the same parcel and in some cases out living the hunter. It represents how silly or stupid a ban on baiting actually is in an attempt to decrease the spread of CWD. That's not even considering an oak tree 100 years or a beechnut lasting 300 years.


I think the dnrs argument is that if you take some of the apples from an apple tree and create bate sites some miles away from the appletree, you create additional congregation of additiinal deer groups that did not exist because of the apple tree. And the original congregation of the original deer still exists thus you have taken a "problem" and exacerbated it. 

I put problem into quotes bc i have no idea if bait is a problem, nor do i wish to debate that fact. 

Sent from my SM-G955U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> The point you left out is that apple tree will disperse over a bushel for years. Approximately 40 years, far longer than most hunters hunt on the same parcel and in some cases out living the hunter. It represents how silly or stupid a ban on baiting actually is in an attempt to decrease the spread of CWD. That's not even considering an oak tree 100 years or a beechnut lasting 300 years.


Well, interesting you now add beech and oak trees. We have a bumper crop of oak acorns this year, first time in four years this has occurred. Oaks, comprise less than three percent of the deciduous trees in Michigan. Source: Terry Minzey, MDNR Wildlife Division Region 1 Supervisor.

Similar to Winter Deer Complexes, they contribute disproportionally to their degree of prevalence on the landscape, when they bear a mast crop.

The apples are always in the same place, not hopping around on the landscape, nor at anywhere near the shear volume of bait(cabbage, carrots, sugar beets, alfalfa, corn) dispersed on the landscape in this State. We are talking at least an order of magnitude difference in volume in the Lower Peninsula. I have a friend who farms non-commercial varietal apples, he sells his damaged apples for cider and feeding, but he makes his money off the apples he sells locally as food, since these varieties do not ship well. In bad crop years he still has never sold more apples for bait. I strongly argue that other orchards operate similarly. I can't speak to what is the percentage annual waste in the controlled atmosphere storage warehouses in Michigan.


----------



## micooner (Dec 20, 2003)

Steve said:


>


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Joe Archer said:


> Another point that you may be missing, or misrepresenting, is the implied desire to do nothing. I think most understand the seriousness of the disease. However, the point made in the interview was that there is no scientific evidence to support bait promoting the spread of CWD, or better stated, that banning bait will slow the spread.
> To take it a bit further and demonstrate the bias displayed by the DNR/NRC that Ted was referring to you have to look no further than their initial summary of the guiding principles drawn from the best science. They write
> _"Management practices that increase biological carrying capacity (*such as supplemental feeding by humans)* may cause CWD to persist and spread..._
> They just threw in the part in bold! The research article that they include in their references does not go past the biological carrying capacity conclusion, and makes no mention whatsoever of "supplemental feeding".
> ...


 Joe, I decided to break my response into two parts: Which is the exactly the 20,000 foot elevation summary of the MDNR/NRC's approach: 1.) Kill deer (if they don't achieve their harvest goals through liberalization of tags, bags and seasons, the professional sharpshooters are the next option) to reduce herd density, disrupt deer social groups, and diminish fecal oral contact. 2.)And, further reduce contact via a baiting ban. These are intended to be complementary actions, operating in tandem with each other. Sportsman don't get to cherry pick their compliance, based on personal biases or rationalization.

Just think, if you folks had wolves, you would have another layer of protection from rate of spread below the Bridge...yes, I am serious!

One broad outcome that is consistent in nearly every paper I have read as an undergrad or a graduate student, as well as during my time at MSU and USFWS, underscored the elevated incidence of disease, social stressors altering reproductive success and rate in populations of vertebrates at or above carrying capacity.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

If the facts are true that only one deer at a deer farm had CWD Then why isn’t there more. You know damn good and well that deer had contact with others and the soil must of been contaminated too. But why no other positive tests.


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

sureshot006 said:


> I wouldnt want person after person approaching me either.


Now you know how Capt nick feels on the river. Haha

Love nick


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

ratherboutside said:


> I think the dnrs argument is that if you take some of the apples from an apple tree and create bate sites some miles away from the appletree, you create additional congregation of additiinal deer groups that did not exist because of the apple tree. And the original congregation of the original deer still exists thus you have taken a "problem" and exacerbated it.
> 
> I put problem into quotes bc i have no idea if bait is a problem, nor do i wish to debate that fact.
> 
> Sent from my SM-G955U using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


You can not make deer you have to grow them so there is no additional deer for that area. Are they congregated by the apples someone put out, yes. No different then they congregate in an alfalfa field or under an oak tree. The only significant difference is it allows hunters who do not or can not coax deer with food plots to use bait to kill (harvest) deer that otherwise may not be on the property or offering a shot during daylight or shooting hours.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Cork Dust said:


> Ted likes to use the logic of the absurd arguments to support his points. By making his illustrations in at the far extreme of the panorama, he tries to diminish the logic of the point he is attempting to refute. Yes, there is a difference between the apples that fall from an apple tree that deer consume on a point by point basis and bait piles of those same apples transported and concentrated in optimal deer habitat, in terms of disease spread risk. One, Unky Ted's extrapolation number of apple trees includes large chunks of geography where, via testing, no CWD has currently been detected. So, now let's focus on the CWD management zone where, via baiting those same apples are now spread, point-by-point far more uniformly across the landscape to concentrate and aggregate deer. These bait piles tend to be used, year after year on private lands, as well as many sites on public lands. By increasing the points of deer concentration within the management zone via baiting and repeating the practice year-after-year, nose-to-nose contact and fecal/oral material contact is enhanced beyond the social grooming Ted focuses on as a natural mechanism, which cannot be diminished. But, it can be diminished... by reducing deer density via harvest. Ted's argument is; if you can't reduce nose-to-nose contact via social grooming within doe and buck bands, or aggregations while foraging naturally, managers should make no effort to impact deer contact via means they can control- herd density reductions on the landscape and elimination of bait sights. Dead deer don't groom each other, and social band structure is markedly altered via herd density reduction. AS an Self-appointed EXPERT, Super Patriot, RED White and Blue bleeding, Bill of Rights defending self-appointed defender of the Common Man and his values...he kinda left out the greater over-riding risk argument, that, in many of the in vitro studies performed that attempt to document the mechanisms of cross-species transfer of infectious CWD positive prions, the resulting transferred infectious prions often have altered amino acid sequences compared to the original particle. Conversion of healthy prion proteins to miss-folded infectious prions involves formation of a "steric zipper array" which involves getting a sequentially better meshing of the two adjacent amino acid chain "teeth". Organisms that possess this amino acid array in the right sections of the prion proteins are deemed universal donors...the Pandora's Box that bring this TSE closer, much closer to being directly transmissible to Man.
> 
> I thought it was quite interesting that Dough Roberts spent a lengthy interval discussing how important it is to manage Bovine TB via reduction in nose-to-nose contact and herd aggregation mechanisms, yet Ted totally dismissed these efforts as an effective means of deer disease control. Score one for Doug Roberts. I'll give him another point for raising the zip code study done of Wisconsin based deer kills within their CWD zone, which tracked the origin zip codes of the participating hunters through a specific time interval. A subset of these folks took their deer carcasses home, processed them and then tossed them in the garbage, dumpster, landfill, landscape, back forty, side-of-road, etc. likely contributing to disease spread. Mr. Roberts opted to mention that no CWD infected animals showed up in concentrated testing of the ranched deer sites in follow-up. Then he stated that the disease incidence is lower in farmed deer than wild deer in Michigan. Odd. When I take the three CWD positive deer found in captive herds and then divide that by the total herd population value at those high fence sites, I come up with a bigger number that the incidence rate determined within the management zone divided by the total number of wild deer tested to date. Mr. Roberts lauded the deer ranching industry for its compliance and support of CWD management and science research, yet he never mentioned that it was a captive cervid facility that was the origin site for chronic wasting disease's discovery. Yes, it was a Federal facility in Colorado where initial incidence was first documented. He also failed to mention the escape rate data from the Michigan Agriculture Dept.'s assessment of facilities within the state done recently.
> 
> ...





> So, now let's focus on the CWD management zone where, via baiting those same apples are now spread, point-by-point far more uniformly across the landscape to concentrate and aggregate deer. These bait piles tend to be used, year after year on private lands, as well as many sites on public lands. By increasing the points of deer concentration within the management zone via baiting and repeating the practice year-after-year, nose-to-nose contact and fecal/oral material contact is enhanced beyond the social grooming Ted focuses on as a natural mechanism, which cannot be diminished. But, it can be diminished... by reducing deer density via harvest.
> 
> 
> > I find it interesting, That you address baiting in the disease zone, which nobody has suggested.
> ...


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

sparky18181 said:


> If the facts are true that only one deer at a deer farm had CWD Then why isn’t there more. You know damn good and well that deer had contact with others and the soil must of been contaminated too. But why no other positive tests.


Actually, there were three deer that tested positive from two facilities. One of the facility owner's had a local Amish farmer who butchers deer provide him heads to submit, since he was not really very good in his compliance...so whose deer or where the deer was taken from was an unknown.

Now, Spark, here is the fun part. If you go to the DNR CWD site there is a table of the current tested deer value and incidence rate within the Management Zone, also there is a Heat Map that tracks incidence in wild deer sampled by 1/4 section of land that is converted to show where most of the wild herd positives are showing up in sampling. Do you find it as interesting as I do that this figure shows the highest incidence of occurrence in the wild herd area around the facilities in Mecosta county?

https://www.qdma.com/this-cwd-map-spells-trouble-future-deer-hunting/

Doug Roberts mentioned this data during his interview, which, in and off itself is pretty sobering, because it implies that hunter's poor carcass disposal has likely played a significant role in CWD spread out of Wisconsin.

So, the endpoint is, who cares who is responsible, let's all suck-it-up and deal with the situation, finger-pointing serves no purpose that is beneficial.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> You can not make deer you have to grow them so there is no additional deer for that area. Are they congregated by the apples someone put out, yes. No different then they congregate in an alfalfa field or under an oak tree. The only significant difference is it allows hunters who do not or can not coax deer with food plots to use bait to kill (harvest) deer that otherwise may not be on the property or offering a shot during daylight or shooting hours.


the way it differs is that it happens IN ADDITION to the sites and means you mention, further aggregating deer together over other avenues that do this. Can't burn, the crop fields, cut the trees, teach the deer to not engage in social grooming, BUT, you can eliminate bait sites and not add to the problem of concentrated deer...while shooting them at high rates to lower the occurrence of all the contact points you keep mentioning. Why argue just to argue...?


----------



## on a call (Jan 16, 2010)

However many may disagree with the state and the measures they are taking....I feel it is better to take an action and see if it works. Besides....they are smarter than many of us...possibly most. 

There is most likely nothing we can do...that is what he is saying. So lets do business as normal.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Joe Archer said:


> Another point that you may be missing, or misrepresenting, is the implied desire to do nothing. I think most understand the seriousness of the disease. However, the point made in the interview was that there is no scientific evidence to support bait promoting the spread of CWD, or better stated, that banning bait will slow the spread.
> To take it a bit further and demonstrate the bias displayed by the DNR/NRC that Ted was referring to you have to look no further than their initial summary of the guiding principles drawn from the best science. They write
> _"Management practices that increase biological carrying capacity (*such as supplemental feeding by humans)* may cause CWD to persist and spread..._
> They just threw in the part in bold! The research article that they include in their references does not go past the biological carrying capacity conclusion, and makes no mention whatsoever of "supplemental feeding".
> ...


I dont see bait increasing carrying capacity, or being a management practice, pretty sure they were trying to address food plots etc. Without pissing off their buddies.

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Rowdy Bandit (Mar 22, 2016)

Eureka! Ban food plots!


----------



## BlackRhino (Feb 21, 2005)

Everything said, didn't see MOOD but I can assure you bait is flying off the stacked piles at the party stores. 

Someone must not have gotten the word...

Sent from my XT1710-02 using Tapatalk


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Cork Dust said:


> the way it differs is that it happens IN ADDITION to the sites and means you mention, further aggregating deer together over other avenues that do this. Can't burn, the crop fields, cut the trees, teach the deer to not engage in social grooming, BUT, you can eliminate bait sites and not add to the problem of concentrated deer...while shooting them at high rates to lower the occurrence of all the contact points you keep mentioning. Why argue just to argue...?


If you lose the hunter the deer populations are not kept in check or reduced.
By stopping another site is minimal compared to not harvesting and loss of revenue from licenses and loosing a potential increase in hunter retention. You not only loose the hunter but most likely a potential mentor for others.

A bait site compared to natural sites is minimal and has not stopped the spread in other states and will not in Michigan. There also is also no scientific data that substantiates your claims that banning bait actually does stop CWD spread. 



Cork Dust said:


> Why argue just to argue...?


I believe sir you need to look in a mirror.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

UnknwnBanditRowdyTucoRojo said:


> Eureka! Ban food plots!


Colorado is working on that

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

swampbuck said:


> Exactly, and the NRC needs a house cleaning to remove the special interests and prevent it happening again
> 
> Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


Drain The Swamp!!


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

swampbuck said:


> Colorado is working on that
> 
> Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


The dnr has made it illegal for me to throw an apple down on my property, why not make my plots illegal as well? I can see it happening


----------



## on a call (Jan 16, 2010)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> The dnr has made it illegal for me to throw an apple down on my property, why not make my plots illegal as well? I can see it happening


If that is case...why not cut down all the oak trees too. 
And....kill the grasses and well...all foods 

*Yeah baby, we can call Michigan.... Mc Desert *


----------



## on a call (Jan 16, 2010)

NO* deer No disease  Win win *

*And all those bill boards advertising hunting licenses bought this and gave you that will be out the window.*


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

on a call said:


> If that is case...why not cut down all the oak trees too.
> And....kill the grasses and well...all foods
> 
> *Yeah baby, we can call Michigan.... Mc Desert *


Buying autumn olive is now illegal, could do the same with oaks.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> If you lose the hunter the deer populations are not kept in check or reduced.
> By stopping another site is minimal compared to not harvesting and loss of revenue from licenses and loosing a potential increase in hunter retention. You not only loose the hunter but most likely a potential mentor for others.
> 
> A bait site compared to natural sites is minimal and has not stopped the spread in other states and will not in Michigan. There also is also no scientific data that substantiates your claims that banning bait actually does stop CWD spread.
> ...


The hunters that wash-out or participation don't kill many deer, simply look at hunter success rates overall, the people who succeed stay in the woods and stay at it until they do connect. They don't plop themselves down over a bait pile for a sit or two. 

Your contention is that large blocks of hunters will stop persuing deer...B.S. absolute B.S. As is the whole "we are going to take our toys and go play elsewhere" story. It is an interesting era when the DNR is offering a series of workshops to teach people how to hunt without relying on bait piles...pretty sad commentary on how dependent this route has become.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Waif said:


> Was the federal facility in Colorado the "petri dish" that created a C.W.D. prion that proved infectious to wild (non captive and different specie) cervids?
> 
> IF such leanings are ingrained in biologists and science , then avoiding cervid concentrations to avoid greater contagion in their opinions makes more sense.
> 
> ...


Well, Waif, you have managed to misconstrue the management effort in its entirety. Congratulations once again!

Who has ever said anything about eradicating the disease's presence in soil on any landscape? All of the management efforts enacted by various States are directed at containment and slowing spread...not one on eradication. Consequently, your riff about soil testing has no bearing on management efforts.

Gee, per your argument deer are uniformly distributed over the landscape, not clustered within a habitat block, as we learned during our biometry field studies, documented via radio collar tracking, or have observed while hunting...when you hunt do you see uniform numbers across the landscape you walk? Enough said...on the validity of your screed.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Cork Dust said:


> The hunters that wash-out or participation don't kill many deer, simply look at hunter success rates overall, the people who succeed stay in the woods and stay at it until they do connect. They don't plop themselves down over a bait pile for a sit or two.
> 
> Your contention is that large blocks of hunters will stop persuing deer...B.S. absolute B.S. As is the whole "we are going to take our toys and go play elsewhere" story. It is an interesting era when the DNR is offering a series of workshops to teach people how to hunt without relying on bait piles...pretty sad commentary on how dependent this route has become.


You had me interested until this post. It's pure B.S.


----------



## Tilden Hunter (Jun 14, 2018)

Joe Archer said:


> I think the analogy being missed is along the lines of; "What is the difference between planting an apple tree, to just supplying a bushel of apples here and there"?
> Theoretically, the tree will congregate deer in an area for much longer than a single bushel or two.
> <----<<<


But how do I get those apples from the tree to all fall behind one stump?


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Tilden Hunter said:


> But how do I get those apples from the tree to all fall behind one stump?


Small apple tree.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Justin said:


> You had me interested until this post. It's pure B.S.


Thankyou, Justin, for your compelling rebuttal.


There is a statistic that QDMA ran that ties hunter hours spent in the field hunting with the percent success rate...reworded, you can't shoot deer in a bar, or in front of a TV.


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Cork Dust said:


> Thankyou, Justin, for your compelling rebuttal.
> 
> 
> There is a statistic that QDMA ran that ties hunter hours spent in the field hunting with the percent success rate...reworded, you can't shoot deer in a bar, or in front of a TV.


QDMA... there's the problem.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Cork Dust said:


> The hunters that wash-out or participation don't kill many deer, simply look at hunter success rates overall, the people who succeed stay in the woods and stay at it until they do connect. They don't plop themselves down over a bait pile for a sit or two.
> 
> Your contention is that large blocks of hunters will stop persuing deer...B.S. absolute B.S. As is the whole "we are going to take our toys and go play elsewhere" story. It is an interesting era when the DNR is offering a series of workshops to teach people how to hunt without relying on bait piles...pretty sad commentary on how dependent this route has become.


The only BS is your post/posts.


----------



## DeerShack (Apr 7, 2013)

"The state owns the deer" I've seen this statement in several posts on this thread. Aren't the deer, and other natural resources, owned by the _people_ of the State of Michigan?


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

I trust no man that wants everyone to call him uncle.


----------



## Lazy-J (Apr 11, 2019)

RedM2 said:


> The state owns the deer until their deer are involved in a car-deer accident... then they want nothing to do with it unless there's a way they can fine or arrest the driver depending on the circumstances. Lol.
> 
> Btw, I firmly believe the baiting ban will lower hunter numbers.


My experience is just the opposite. I hit a deer this summer coming back from camp in the U.P. My truck was not drivable due to radiator & front end damage. The state trooper who responded could not have been more helpful! He gave me a ride an hour away to find a rental car to get home. Without his assistance I was pretty much up a creek. As far as fewer hunters in the lower peninsula with the baiting ban. That's a good thing. There are plenty of other states with good whitetail hunting.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

jr28schalm said:


> I trust no man that wants everyone to call him uncle.


Lol but maybe it's because if you got into a debate with him he would make you say Uncle! He has a knack for making others look foolish even if he's not totally right.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> To be fair I only went back to your post 182. You are aware of this threads content (Uncle Ted on Michigan Out of doors) and the original post
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, Bigbear's post was interesting, as you note the really good part was where he inferred significantly greater maturity, right before he reverted to personal insults rather than a discussion ranging around his stated working knowledge of CWD in cervids

So, Hunters Edge, lets turn the tables to similarly scrutinize your postings in this thread as well. In summary: You can't (actually you refuse)comprehend that adding up all the acorns and beech nuts, domestic and wild apples, that fall to the ground within the CWD management zone that fall in a season, quantified by volume, is a MUCH smaller than the same sum, with all of cabbage, apples, corn, carrots, alfalfa, sugar beets etc. plopped on the ground by hunters in spots different from their origin sites, a lot of it from out-of-State. You also argue that there is no additional aggregation of deer around these sites over and above what occurs naturally on the landscape as well as in agricultural fields. Where is the tie to Unky Ted's screed? Never once in any of your posts did you even reference Ted Nugent's statements.

Now there is a dichotomy. So, let's touch on the other blatant one...

Help me now with this because I always struggle with it...aren't Christians and Christianity's central tenants and cornerstone beliefs open mindedness, tolerance, acceptance, non-judgementalism, and compassion? Your espoused faith and its principals don't square well with your behavior,

.


----------



## Jimbos (Nov 21, 2000)

jr28schalm said:


> I trust no man that wants everyone to call him uncle.


That's okay, he probably doesn't trust people that have to numb themselves with drugs, so you're even.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Jimbos said:


> That's okay, he probably doesn't trust people that have to numb themselves with drugs, so you're even.


Well his kids do .lol.. hope your practicing and what's the over and under on lost crips this year.+-3


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Cork Dust said:


> Yeah, Bigbear's post was interesting, as you note the really good part was where he inferred significantly greater maturity, right before he reverted to personal insults rather than a discussion ranging around his stated working knowledge of CWD in cervids
> 
> So, Hunters Edge, lets turn the tables to similarly scrutinize your postings in this thread as well. In summary: You can't (actually you refuse)comprehend that adding up all the acorns and beech nuts, domestic and wild apples, that fall to the ground within the CWD management zone that fall in a season, quantified by volume, is a MUCH smaller than the same sum, with all of cabbage, apples, corn, carrots, alfalfa, sugar beets etc. plopped on the ground by hunters in spots different from their origin sites, a lot of it from out-of-State. You also argue that there is no additional aggregation of deer around these sites over and above what occurs naturally on the landscape as well as in agricultural fields. Where is the tie to Unky Ted's screed? Never once in any of your posts did you even reference Ted Nugent's statements.
> 
> ...


You may want to reread my posts and especially the original post below.



hunting with chuba said:


> Well
> Who agree’s with his thoughts on hunting in Michigan


With all your school smarts, where does it asks for comments on those that disagree with Ted Nugent's aired comments? Also if none of my posts are not negative to his comments than they indeed in agreement and follow MSF guidelines about in topic.

In concerning of my beliefs I have not only shown compassion but shared it by including you in my prayers. As for acceptance I accept you are one that knows everything. It just is that it is in your own mind and not shared by others including myself.

To make it clear in case you have a hard time understanding my previous posts Mr. Nugent is spot on and your posts are similar to blowing hot air.


----------



## RedM2 (Dec 19, 2007)

Lazy-J said:


> My experience is just the opposite. I hit a deer this summer coming back from camp in the U.P. My truck was not drivable due to radiator & front end damage. The state trooper who responded could not have been more helpful! He gave me a ride an hour away to find a rental car to get home. Without his assistance I was pretty much up a creek. As far as fewer hunters in the lower peninsula with the baiting ban. That's a good thing. There are plenty of other states with good whitetail hunting.


And you were stuck with the bill to fix said damages. If my pet causes damage, guess who's on the hook?


----------



## Halothanedreams (Jan 31, 2019)

jr28schalm said:


> I trust no man that wants everyone to call him uncle.


Just like "creepy" "uncle" Joe, right? Because that is so much better, right? 

Tisk, tisk.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> You may want to reread my posts and especially the original post below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Kind of a Fox News type thread. All the news the way we interpret it...and that's the truth, well as we on the right interpret it. So much for Fair and balanced.

Well, last time I looked my 'hot air' is the course of State management action, that you keep ranting against, but have failed to over-turn or cancel. Good on Ya' Mate! Sit this season out, come on stick to the courage of your convictions and boycott the deer season. Then prove that your actions changed the course of management...

Maybe CWD is a punishment from God...on bait hunters! Not very New Testament...


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Halothanedreams said:


> Just like "creepy" "uncle" Joe, right? Because that is so much better, right?
> 
> Tisk, tisk.


I was more into the creepy aunts, but what ever floats your boat


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Cork Dust said:


> Kind of a Fox News type thread. All the news the way we interpret it...and that's the truth, well as we on the right interpret it. So much for Fair and balanced.
> 
> Well, last time I looked my 'hot air' is the course of State management action, that you keep ranting against, but have failed to over-turn or cancel. Good on Ya' Mate! Sit this season out, come on stick to the courage of your convictions and boycott the deer season. Then prove that your actions changed the course of management...
> 
> Maybe CWD is a punishment from God...on bait hunters! Not very New Testament...


I think it is called comprehension or comprehending what you read. Rather than interpret it to justify's one self like you seem to do.



Cork Dust said:


> Well, last time I looked my 'hot air' is the course of State management action, that you keep ranting against, but have failed to over-turn or cancel


Yes and no. Yes it is state management at present but in your posts more like rhetoric. All in do time as far as change, unless you can see in the future as well. One such change is a key player in the baiting ban inception being demoted. So someone's listening to the people's outrage. I think even more will listen in time, especially with no scientific reason for the ban along with not following the CWD guidelines of a 10 mile radius. Which you admitted in the UP being adhered to but not in the LP. Just give it time.



Cork Dust said:


> Maybe CWD is a punishment from God...on bait hunters! Not very New Testament...


Sounds or comes across like your an atheist and even an anti hunter with comments/posts like this. 

I may not agree with you but your still in my prayers.


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

Not a big fan of waiting over big piles of bait to kill deer. I'm guessing this baiting ban will actually help some people kill more deer. There are many areas in Northern Michigan where baiting can hurt your chances. Trail cams don't lie.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Hunters Edge said:


> I think it is called comprehension or comprehending what you read. Rather than interpret it to justify's one self like you seem to do.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I have a Unitarian friend who refers to that statement as the Evangelical Christian Middle Finger"

ANY is based on rhetoric. Unless you have another means of communicating a reasoned argument.

You need to work HARD on your math skills: A big number (all acorns, beech nuts, and apples that fall from trees naturally within the CWD management zone in a given year, summed in whatever unit of volume total you choose), added to another big number( the total volume of additional corn, alfalfa, carrots, cabbage, sugar beets,etc. dumped on the ground in the same total area as bait during the same year), ALWAYS equals a third even larger numbe that is the sum of those first two quantities. The second sum value also represents different locations of these added food sources that would not occur at these locations naturally. You have tried to slice, dice, concoct, and nuance your argument throughout the thread that this is not valid and therefore does not add to additional deer aggregating around a food source, potentially raising the spread risk of infectious CWD prions. Then you change direction and couch your complaint in terms of lost hunters and their lost license revenue, then you try to validate it by stating the lost hunting traditions within a family unit will have dire consequences. Which one of us is offering predictions and speculations on the future without support? You ain't prescient!!

So far, you have inferred that I am an atheist without any evidence other than your perspective; a non-hunter, again without evidence; a liar: a know-it-all: and a shill of the MDNR. Isn't there a specific statement in the Ten Commandments about offering false witness being a sin? To me, you're just a pretty proto-typical, selectively devout Christian; trotting out beliefs you don't adhere to routinely, practice in your everyday activities, or champion for those who are in need of one, in an self-congratulatory effort to elevate your self-worth perception. In my Father's parlance: A typical Sunday Christian"! 

Learn your faith, practice your faith, and then you can postulate on who and what I believe with respect to the deity! Oh, and lighten-up on the near endless hipocrisy


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

fishx65 said:


> Not a big fan of waiting over big piles of bait to kill deer. I'm guessing this baiting ban will actually help some people kill more deer. There are many areas in Northern Michigan where baiting can hurt your chances. Trail cams don't lie.


I don't care what or who you do, Just dont pray for me.. Shets a tad creepy


----------



## Biggbear (Aug 14, 2001)

Cork Dust said:


> I just decided that it was getting old continuing to discuss about how many sides a pancake has as it continued to get thinner and thinner!! So, I called your bluff.
> 
> Up here there is an old woodsman's saying: You have to know what the woods actually looks like before you can recognize the unusual. I suspect that carries-over to understanding CWD spread risks as well, prior interpreting a management plan. In my experience, sitting over a bait pile lends very little to that understanding, but it is a good means of conserving calories...and driving-up heart disease risk!


Call my bluff?? Like I said, your expertise regarding the biological, and scientific aspects of this issue are undeniable. Other than that, you just don't get it, and you never will.


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

Biggbear said:


> Call my bluff?? Like I said, your expertise regarding the biological, and scientific aspects of this issue are undeniable. Other than that, you just don't get it, and you never will.


What don't he get?


----------



## Rowdy Bandit (Mar 22, 2016)

on a call said:


> Also....
> 
> it is about the harvest....so what if you choose to use a combine or pick it by hand ???? It is a harvest. So if you choose to shoot a crossbow or throw a spear you kill a deer.
> 
> ...


I think spearing deer is prohibited(?) (Maybe I read the new guide wrong (again)?)




Cork Dust said:


> Congratulations, you can comprehend technical data, understand the basis of the Scientific Method and its applications, and you have some grasp of statistics and probability theory applications.
> 
> Yes, I fully acknowledge my bias. This is why I let the professional managers of the State's resources make the decisions. Yes, I sometimes disagree, sometimes vehemently. But, in the end, I don't disregard the law, side-step defined science because if fits my preconceptions, obfuscate, and I sure don't look to Ted Nugent to make a cogent argument regarding current CWD management on my behalf.
> 
> ...


Since we're at it... don't _obfuscate_...

That would be "roll-back". 

All in due time. Pretty soon it's do time.


----------



## Rowdy Bandit (Mar 22, 2016)

Different words 'role' and 'roll'. E.g.: "That's how we roll." "What is jr's role in all this?" "How does jr. roll".


----------



## motdean (Oct 23, 2011)

jr28schalm said:


> I don't care what or who you do, Just dont pray for me.. Shets a tad creepy


Thoughts and prayers, brother....


----------



## Lazy-J (Apr 11, 2019)

RedM2 said:


> And you were stuck with the bill to fix said damages. If my pet causes damage, guess who's on the hook?


Driving a vehicle does have some risk. $


Hunters Edge said:


> You may want to reread my posts and especially the original post below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That's your opinion. We all have one. If anyone is blowing air it is you with your cheap shots. Move on to a d


Hunters Edge said:


> You may want to reread my posts and especially the original post below.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That is your opinion. We all have one. If anyone is blowing hot air it is you with your cheap shots. Next topic...


----------



## jr28schalm (Mar 16, 2006)

motdean said:


> Thoughts and prayers, brother....


From what I been learning today. You better save that stuff for the baiters


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Biggbear said:


> Call my bluff?? Like I said, your expertise regarding the biological, and scientific aspects of this issue are undeniable. Other than that, you just don't get it, and you never will.


As I said, we went from a discussion to you tossing insults, immediately after I asked you to answer some basic CWD science questions to verify your knowledge base claimed by you, that would enable you to interpret what the risks are and criticize the management plan. I get it well enough to decide when someone is blowing smoke about what they understand. IF you fully understood what my job functions entailed over my various career work intervals, you would also understand that during every conversation I had with a physician, or physician researcher over twenty-five years of discussions, any bias I carried into the discussion or displayed during that discourse was a hangman's noose to future contact and exchange. Yet you felt compelled to attempt to criticize my points and infer that they are biased because I am a biologist, discussing other biologist's work and management efforts. IF you had a clue about science and the Scientific Method, you would more fully understand what hypothesis testing and assessment of study data is all about, as well as that the vast majority of research journals in any biology discipline are peer reviewed, so the studies undergo a very high level of scrutiny by the editorial boards of those journals prior publication. It is also bad science when in vitro data is extrapolated to in vivo applications.

I get it well enough to recognize a charlatan who overstates their capabilities as a means of attempting to justify their perspective on an issue that is beyond their ken.


----------



## Big Shooter (Jun 24, 2001)

Most Michigan state people can't count. LOL 12 men on the field. Higher education. I know it's off topic but I couldnt resist.


----------



## Rowdy Bandit (Mar 22, 2016)

Cork Dust said:


> As I said, we went from a discussion to you tossing insults, immediately after I asked you to answer some basic CWD science questions to verify your knowledge base claimed by you, that would enable you to interpret what the risks are and criticize the management plan. I get it well enough to decide when someone is blowing smoke about what they understand. IF you fully understood what my job functions entailed over my various career work intervals, you would also understand that during every conversation I had with a physician, or physician researcher over twenty-five years of discussions, any bias I carried into the discussion or displayed during that discourse was a hangman's noose to future contact and exchange. Yet you felt compelled to attempt to criticize my points and infer that they are biased because I am a biologist, discussing other biologist's work and management efforts. IF you had a clue about science and the Scientific Method, you would more fully understand what hypothesis testing and assessment of study data is all about, as well as that the vast majority of research journals in any biology discipline are peer reviewed, so the studies undergo a very high level of scrutiny by the editorial boards of those journals prior publication. It is also bad science when in vitro data is extrapolated to in vivo applications.
> 
> I get it well enough to recognize a charlatan who overstates their capabilities as a means of attempting to justify their perspective on an issue that is beyond their ken.


Black kettle.


----------



## B.Jarvinen (Jul 12, 2014)

I thought ... Ted Nugent moved to Texas?

Did he come back?


----------



## backstrap bill (Oct 10, 2004)

I agree with uncle Ted what he said makes perfect sense. If they got it, they’re going to spread it regardless if you bait or not.


----------



## sureshot006 (Sep 8, 2010)

Someone said something about ingested prions being easily destroyed by stomach acid, right?? Or am I dreaming? Interesting info.

So is it spread like HIV? Lol


----------



## Justsayin (Dec 9, 2017)

First off, not a huge fan of Ted, but his position on baiting / CWD is reasonable as there is no science that demonstrates this relationship. The linkage of feeding to infectious disease (virus, bacteria, etc.) is well understood, if you have the flu don't share your cookie. However, we have no clear understanding of prion disease transmission, thus all possible avenues are included in prevention.

Cork Dust - I believe you are well intentioned and enjoy conflict / debate. I can respect that.

When you discussed new testing "ct-quick", I gave you a pass. The test is RT-QuIC, Real-time quaking induced conversion. This testing method artificially seeds prion into a substrate containing a sample, subjects to cycles of shaking to induce conversion of normal prion (PRPc) into abnormal prion (PRPres) in effect amplifying the result. Thought to detect minute quantities of bad prions, it has the potential to have much greater sensitivity. I wonder if it is forcing conversion, which may not have naturally occurred. Getting a test right is more important than rushing it, imo.

Now back to your posts, the moment you represented that you have no understanding of where CWD is and is not, it became difficult to believe anything else. FYI, Mecosta county has zero CWD positives in wild deer, at least not yet. The new regs to experimentally spread CWD will likely change that. Just a couple observations... no need to respond, I won't.

Waif - Concerns are represented very well. The RT-QuIC test may prove beneficial in detection of prions in soils. This is the test that determined mineral sites were contaminated in the WI study.

BigBear - Recognizing two sides of the pancake is sage advice. Equally important is taking care not to burn either side. I appreciated your posts!


----------



## Rowdy Bandit (Mar 22, 2016)

hunting with chuba said:


> Well
> Who agree’s with his thoughts on hunting in Michigan


Put Justsayin down on your list under "agrees with Ted".


----------



## TNL (Jan 6, 2005)

RE: The OP.

Ted is a hunter, come armchair biologist. His biology cred took a direct hit, however, when he didn't acknowledge TB as being spread by direct contact with an infected animal or indirect contact with a contaminated source (bait). He knows how to affect a sound bite and did so with his "science" explanation. There is no scientific method in his apple tree analogy and certainly no "white paper". Accordingly, he hit the hot button of a lot of the folks who who watch MOOD. I do find it interesting that he moved to Texas and only returns to Michigan for the hunting.

The fella that owns the deer ranch gave some compelling arguments, although I felt he used the data to promote his own pro-enclosure agenda. I thought his anecdotal observation of raised bait platforms merits some looking into, but it's certainly not scientific fact. Expecting 600K deer hunters to have a clean, raised station is not realistic.

Russ Mason has some well earned biology chops. His delivery needs work. We all knew that there was to be an immediate CWD response using the 3 pronged approach. It's in place because that's the best data we have. So we're up in arms now that the DNR response has been triggered. Is it proven? Not really, but how do you prove a negative? Kill every deer and do a necrospy? The mandatory testing in the CWD area and increased kill is a logical place to start based on what little we know about prions. The baiting ban falls in line with it as well.

I think Jimmy is well intentioned. CWD is a complex disease state that researchers really don't have a handle on yet. I do believe he stirred the pot unintentionally, which was clear from his reaction with Nugent. Deer hunters will never agree about baiting. There are those of us who hunted when baiting was illegal and we really never thought much about it. There are those of us who know no other way to hunt. 

A few anecdotal notes: 

I spent a decade in infectious disease. If this thing ever jumps the species barrier, Katie bar the door. Google zoonosis. It's real. It's happened before.

Our team taught a Hunter Safety class last week. We had by far our biggest class ever. There has been no let up in that regard, at least for the last 12 years that I've been teaching it. And each graduate knows, because I was there when the CO told them, that baiting is banned this year. Most of these kids will be doing the youth hunt. So the expected fall in hunter numbers due to the bait ban may not be that big of an issue.

Carry on.


----------



## Tilden Hunter (Jun 14, 2018)

UnknwnBanditRowdyTucoRojo said:


> Different words 'role' and 'roll'. E.g.: "That's how we roll." "What is jr's role in all this?" "How does jr. roll".


Regarding there, their, and they're we abandoned English on this site long ago.


----------



## Hunters Edge (May 15, 2009)

Cork Dust said:


> I have a Unitarian friend who refers to that statement as the Evangelical Christian Middle Finger"


Now that's rich. You expect us to believe you have a friend. Then you also want us to believe you would bow to someone's else knowledge or view.



Cork Dust said:


> So far, you have inferred that I am an atheist without any evidence other than your perspective; a non-hunter, again without evidence; a liar: a know-it-all: and a shill of the MDNR. Isn't there a specific statement in the Ten Commandments about offering false witness being a sin?


Read your posts, I simply wrote what your statements you posted projected.

Even this post


Cork Dust said:


> I have a Unitarian friend who refers to that statement as the Evangelical Christian Middle Finger"


 Suggests that you are a non believer. Your referring to needing a friend to decipher a meaning other than it's intent.



Cork Dust said:


> Learn your faith, practice your faith, and then you can postulate on who and what I believe with respect to the deity!


Never said I was perfect, just commented on your posts. As any Christian knows it is a constant battle or fight. Just for the record I was not giving you the middle finger I was genuinely sincere.


----------



## DeerShack (Apr 7, 2013)

Tilden Hunter said:


> Regarding there, their, and they're we abandoned English on this site long ago.


But is good grammar and spelling a prequizit to hunt and fish?!


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Justsayin said:


> First off, not a huge fan of Ted, but his position on baiting / CWD is reasonable as there is no science that demonstrates this relationship. The linkage of feeding to infectious disease (virus, bacteria, etc.) is well understood, if you have the flu don't share your cookie. However, we have no clear understanding of prion disease transmission, thus all possible avenues are included in prevention.
> 
> Cork Dust - I believe you are well intentioned and enjoy conflict / debate. I can respect that.
> 
> ...


Regs to experimentally spread cwd...lol

Gotta steal that one for the meeting,!

Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app


----------



## Forest Meister (Mar 7, 2010)

A little late in the conversation but surely appropriate nonetheless . FM


----------



## Lazy-J (Apr 11, 2019)

Forest Meister said:


> A little late in the conversation but surely appropriate nonetheless . FM


Well said!


----------



## Halothanedreams (Jan 31, 2019)

Touché, yes and yes and yes.


----------



## RF Pro (May 22, 2019)

FREEPOP said:


>


Looks like Humpty Dumpty Nadler and his not-so-merry group of like-minded morons.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Dish7 said:


> Just seems like at least four years with the amount crying that thread created.



The crying was unbelievable, just in the first post. Then it kept going..............


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

FREEPOP said:


> Your math not so good
> 
> https://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/starve-the-beast.594152/


Plus or minus a year, math is irrelevant. By posting, you proved my point. 


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

sniper said:


> Plus or minus a year, math is irrelevant. By posting, you proved my point.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


Two years, two months.

4 plus or minus a year would equal 5 or 3


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

Cork Dust said:


> What I said is that eradicating the disease at the soil level is NOT the goal of management, slowing rate of spread is. Why is it that you have to try and twist that statement into something else.
> 
> *"So, the plan is to increase buck age and continue reducing doe groups. Thereby expanding buck movement andcontact at greater range."*
> Waif, as only you can do, you managed to get the whole thing bass-ackwards, including the biology. Actually, the hunt and seek bucks, based on Ozoga's research are the 1,5 YOs in a population. Older bucks, in a stable age array tend to engage in more ritualized breeding and mating. You missed some important information, the older buck component is being preferentially targeted since they are more likely to carry the disease. Younger bucks also engage in serial grooming as part of their social hierarchy rituals further increasing nose-to-nose contact, which obviously cannot be managed or manipulated, other than shooting them out of the herd.


Let’s not cast stones when you use the word “riddled “
To describe disease in the deer herd. Granted. No amount of disease is a good thing but don’t make it sound like it’s the end of the herd


----------



## sparky18181 (Apr 17, 2012)

1.75 million deer in Michigan and what’s the count for CWD. Has it reached 100 yet after testing of approximately 31000 free ranging deer. I don’t think the herd is riddled with disease Seems like HD was a pretty big issue a few years back and killed a lot more than 100 deer but we don’t seem to hear much about that anymore. One positive case in the U P and hundreds of heads tested with no further positives yet a baiting ban.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

FREEPOP said:


> Two years, two months.
> 
> 4 plus or minus a year would equal 5 or 3


I really wonder now who really is the psycho neighbor??


Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


----------



## Steve (Jan 15, 2000)

motdean said:


> I was going to say that Munster didn't start that thread.
> 
> BTW, it seems like Ted is ramping up the "bait" fight.
> 
> ...


That will never happen unless he is getting paid.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

sniper said:


> I really wonder now who really is the psycho neighbor??
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


There's two, plus or minus one


----------



## LabtechLewis (Nov 20, 2008)

FREEPOP said:


> There's two, plus or minus one


Are you saying you have _four (4) neighbors_? 

Huh? Didn't realize you were a city guy...


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

LabtechLewis said:


> Are you saying you have _four (4) neighbors_?
> 
> Huh? Didn't realize you were a city guy...



Actually, 5 neighbors, 3 of which are in the city limits. Population ~ 5,000


----------



## Rowdy Bandit (Mar 22, 2016)

sniper said:


> I would guess the original poster of “starve the beast” started the thread to get a rise out of people. 4 years later he’s still getting a rise out of people. That’s got to be some kind of record.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


I bought licenses every year and always have some left over. That's not because I'm so generous though. More 'crappy hunter', so have also gone to one buck, one doe purchases.

Plus, I like the option of the self-imposed one-buck rule. We should have the right to choose.



sparky18181 said:


> 1.75 million deer in Michigan and what’s the count for CWD. Has it reached 100 yet after testing of approximately 31000 free ranging deer. I don’t think the herd is riddled with disease Seems like HD was a pretty big issue a few years back and killed a lot more than 100 deer but we don’t seem to hear much about that anymore. One positive case in the U P and hundreds of heads tested with no further positives yet a baiting ban.


Yeah, and it's believed that the Michigan Rep's family planted that yoop one anyway. So so far, it's really zero in the upper.



Steve said:


> That will never happen unless he is getting paid.


I'd bet he's lurked nonetheless... eating this up.



FREEPOP said:


> Actually, 5 neighbors, 3 of which are in the city limits. Population ~ 5,000


Oooh! Big time city slicker!


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

UnknwnBanditRowdyTucoRojo said:


> .......
> Yeah, and it's believed that the Michigan Rep's family planted that yoop one anyway. So so far, it's really zero in the upper.
> .........


So far that's a stupid rumor. How many miles from the Wis/Mich border was that doe taken ?

L & O


----------



## LabtechLewis (Nov 20, 2008)

Hmmmm..."Viewer Bragging Board" had different background music than I'm used to hearing. Coincidence???  :lol:


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

sniper said:


> I would guess the original poster of “starve the beast” started the thread to get a rise out of people. 4 years later he’s still getting a rise out of people. That’s got to be some kind of record.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Michigan Sportsman


I'll remember this the next time someone tells me I'm someone that's been gone for over 5 years.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

UnknwnBanditRowdyTucoRojo said:


> I bought licenses every year and always have some left over. That's not because I'm so generous though. More 'crappy hunter', so have also gone to one buck, one doe purchases.
> 
> Plus, I like the option of the self-imposed one-buck rule. We should have the right to choose.
> 
> ...


A face value, it may sound that way until I reveal that the boarder between 3 of the neighbors and my self is a nice wide and deep Creek.


----------



## mbrewer (Aug 16, 2014)

Liver and Onions said:


> Wasn't expecting a response from that member because I don't think he is posting at this time in the deer forums. Was hoping that one of his friends might know the answer and give a short reply.
> 
> L & O


 Or any of the other 10-15 regulars that solemnly pledged allegiance.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Milosh said:


> What does that even mean, but continue to critique.


MY point exactly!


----------



## Milosh (Dec 28, 2018)

Cork Dust said:


> MY point exactly!


I get it you were trolling and I bit shame on me. No more, continue on sciolist.


----------



## Cork Dust (Nov 26, 2012)

Milosh said:


> I get it you were trolling and I bit shame on me. No more, continue on sciolist.


What you said, as written, implied that your opinion was either hallucination, or a vision.]

Do sciolists speak and write English that is legible and conveys ideas effectively? Guilty.

Next time, let's actually discuss the proof that baiting does not contribute to CWD spread. I encourage you supply all the support studies to counter that point, particularly since you judge me uninformed, that indirectly places you as better informed, since you infer you have the skill and knowledge to arrive at that conclusion. Please, elucidate me on the science that documents no additional risk conferred to deer via baiting on spread of infectious prions among deer.

Let's have a conversation that actually is focused on the "bleeding" subject!!!

Feel free to include Dish 7's wealth of information that CWD exists outside the management zones as well...you can squeeze it in, since it is non-existent and just an opinion, just like Unky Ted's screed.


----------



## Rowdy Bandit (Mar 22, 2016)

Liver and Onions said:


> So far that's a stupid rumor. How many miles from the Wis/Mich border was that doe taken ?
> 
> L & O


Be safe out there and enjoy.


----------

