# DNR shooting deer over bait!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



## Hulk (Dec 18, 2009)

standsetter said:


> Go for it, enjoy it, put on the aluminum foil fedora and the rose colored glasses. It would be even cooler if when you call, Get up, Stand up by Bob Marley and the Wailers, was providing the background music.
> 
> Never let a good crisis go to waste, or something like that. FYI, you probably have 45 seconds to get er done before they triangulate your location and suspend your phone privileges.
> 
> ...


:coco::coco:


----------



## LoBrass (Oct 16, 2007)

When talking about killing deer, regardless of where on the surface of this state, some members of the hunting crowd feel they are getting ripped off if they don't get their shot at them. 

The sense of entitlement that permeates this crowd is what is truly sickening. Why don't we just become a Communist country?!!:yikes: Then eveyone will have the same basket to play with. Virtually every issue under the sun can be construed in a way to appear hypocritical.

Let the powers that be get the job done in the most efficient way possible. Let them use bait, rifles, night tactics, dynamite, ray guns, WHATEVER!! I'd bet the people with adjoining property are the ones at the true root of this cull. They have the interest in this action and _will benefit_ from each step in the process.

Common sense is NOT hypocritical.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

I still don't think people understand the concept of precedents. They don't just apply to the legal field but to other areas of government as well. If you "allow" baiting to take place due to an overpopulated park, you will have a tough time telling golf courses they can't utilize bait to control herd damage. Then the farmers. Then the private land owner with a million dollar landscape project. It is done and now they will have to find the intestinal fortitude to explain why no one else can do so.


----------



## cadillacjethro (Mar 21, 2007)

How would you define the word credibility?


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

bucksnbows said:


> The Dnr probably picked up the bait when done and probably didn't stash the bags the bait came in under a log or in the crotch of a tree, unlike what you find at most public land bait piles.


 
The DNR didn't ban baiting because slob hunters littered. You keep missing the point. If bait spreads disease, they shouldn't have done it! And you are probably right, they probably picked up the left over bait at the end of the hunt, and used their prion vacuum to take care of that as well. 

We all know that anyone that ever baited was a slob, they should have just told us up front that they are banning baiting because bait hunters are unethical slobs. But they didn't they said it had to do with the spread of a disease. 

So, we have yet another creative rationalizer. Any other creative thinkers out there?


----------



## hplayer13 (Nov 3, 2008)

Once again, I still thoroughly enjoy QDM's mini-picture


----------



## Hulk (Dec 18, 2009)

Rasputin said:


> The DNR didn't ban baiting because slob hunters littered. You keep missing the point. If bait spreads disease, they shouldn't have done it! And you are probably right, they probably picked up the left over bait at the end of the hunt, and used their prion vacuum to take care of that as well.
> 
> We all know that anyone that ever baited was a slob, they should have just told us up front that they are banning baiting because bait hunters are unethical slobs. But they didn't they said it had to do with the spread of a disease.
> 
> So, we have yet another creative rationalizer. Any other creative thinkers out there?


That's a pretty funny post, I enjoyed it!:lol:
Besides the baiting issue, Willow is not overpopulated. 
It's actually difficult to see deer in that park, I guess that's why they needed to bait em.:lol:


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Who cannot like a lootin'-shootin'-burnin' thread like this one? All these pro-baiters channelling their inner-NancyGrace personas over 'hypocricy'.

I don't LIKE this thread.....I LOVE this thread.

Let's go over this thought one more time------

Pretend you are the crashdummy and this logic is the windshield: 
Police have "police powers". 
They get to do things you can't. 
They get to throw around tear gas. 
Smack folks with a baton. 
Drive real fast in slow zones.
Use bait for culling. 
Legally.

And whoa!....none of that is hypocritical to the existing laws.

Imagine your surprise. 

Is there a 12-step program for baiters?


----------



## rz6x59 (Nov 9, 2008)

I hate to burst everyones bubble but my buddy heard from of a friend of a friends cousin's uncle that the 'bait' was actually scented plastic ornamental fruit like you see at an Art Van kitchen display. By the time these park deer realized the plastic fruit couldn't be eaten they were pumped full of lead.
Sounds like a great backup plan for next season!!


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

fairfax1 said:


> Who cannot like a lootin'-shootin'-burnin' thread like this one? All these pro-baiters channelling their inner-NancyGrace personas over 'hypocricy'.
> 
> I don't LIKE this thread.....I LOVE this thread.
> 
> ...


Lets play which one doesn't fit in your group of categories. 


*The get to throw tear gas*- When? When a law is being broken.

*Smack folks with a baton*- When? When a law is being broken

*Drive real fast in slow zones.*- When? When a law is being broken

*Use bait for culling.*- When? When there is an overpopulation of deer in a park.



And now for the million dollar question- In what way is a cull hunt a "policing" operation? Perhaps you can point me to the MCL that allows police enforcement on overpopulated deer in parks? Perhaps it's in the general duties and responsibilities listed for LEO's in MI? And perhaps you could go further to explain just exactly what law the deer were breaking that called for police enforcement action and for lethal force? :lol:


----------



## TheCrawdad (May 9, 2009)

I don't believe baiting spreads non-existant diseases. The DNR says it does. Then THEY bait. I've always said that until all wild apple trees are cut down, deer (social animals) WILL congregate. I couldn't care less if they bait in a park, or lift the ban, but I do know hypocrisy when I see it. CDAD


----------



## Bulletproof (Jul 26, 2005)

Let's not try to take this one _out of context_ here guys. Examine the facts:

Bait was used in this operation as a tool or means of reducing an overpopulated area of the SLP. It appears that this was/is an effective *means* of achieving this *end*. 

So the obvious question to any thinking man might sound like this:

Why is it that hunters don't have access to this tool as well, _in an entire SLP region that is overpopulated?_

Before you reply to this post, please save your *transparent* disease risk associated with bait answer and they were the 'law' BURNING STRAWMAN for someone else. 

FWIW, I don't bait either.......Just calling a spade a spade.


----------



## doack (Dec 17, 2009)

QDMAMAN said:


> Do comments like this make your argument more, or less, credible?:sad:


Its how I feel Nancy...Sorry if it offends.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Michihunter said:


> Interesting choice of words. Not sure how you equate an opinion of hypocrisy to internet bad asses. Do you feel that way every time someone disagrees with your opinion? .


Nope, not at all. Your opinion is not that important to me to be honest, just as mine shouldn't be that important to you. The internet bad asses are the guys here complaining on an internet board yet won't do anything else about it. Has nothing to do with my opinion. Oh, they'll whine and cry like babies on this forum and thump their chests because law enforcement is using a tool they can't but thats all it will be......a bunch of internet whining and crying. I bet not one of these whiners will actually show up at an NRC meeting and question this tactic. So if your not a hypocrite yourself, I expect you to voice your opinion to the NRC, legislators...whoever it takes. Since you seem so concerned with it, that should be no problem! 

I'll say it again, its abslutely ridiculous to compare maybe only one bait pile (since nobody on here has seen multiple bait sites in this park) in a cull operation to a full 3 month hunting season with thousands of bait sites when it comes to impact on the deer herd.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

fairfax1 said:


> I don't LIKE this thread.....I LOVE this thread.


I absolutely agree! Gives you high horse riders an opportunity to spit and sputter as you try to rationalize. Your ally on this subject, the DNR(E), has put you in bad position by using bait themselves. You must feel violated, betrayed.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Lets just kill all the deer. Then we won't have any problems and we wont be up late tucking them into their buck beds.

Ganzer


----------



## Smen (Apr 26, 2008)

I would rather they get it over with then to see my tax dollars spent on an officer hunting for to weeks or how ever long it takes them am I wrong in thinking this way.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Swamp Monster said:


> Nope, not at all. Your opinion is not that important to me to be honest, just as mine shouldn't be that important to you. The internet bad asses are the guys here complaining on an internet board yet won't do anything else about it. Has nothing to do with my opinion. Oh, they'll whine and cry like babies on this forum and thump their chests because law enforcement is using a tool they can't but thats all it will be......a bunch of internet whining and crying. I bet not one of these whiners will actually show up at an NRC meeting and question this tactic. So if your not a hypocrite yourself, I expect you to voice your opinion to the NRC, legislators...whoever it takes. Since you seem so concerned with it, that should be no problem!
> 
> I'll say it again, its abslutely ridiculous to compare maybe only one bait pile (since nobody on here has seen multiple bait sites in this park) in a cull operation to a full 3 month hunting season with thousands of bait sites when it comes to impact on the deer herd.


 I'm sure there's a "few" on these boards that can vouch for my pro active nature when it comes to things I believe in but that's hardly the issue here. Expressing an opinion doesn't make a person an internet bad ass. But someone calling another out for that opinion might certainly fit that description. I hardly see any whining going on but more of an expressed opinion of hypocrisy. Personally I have no issue with culling an overpopulated deer herd. I also have no problem with them using bait to do so. What I take issue with is that the DNR has explicitly stated that baiting has been banned BECAUSE of the risk of disease transmission yet they allow it to be used in an area of overpopulated deer which to any thinking man would make that risk a lot greater. The hypocrisy is evident and the door has been opened for others to use the same approach to "cull" overpopulated deer in other areas where bait has been banned. Do you not see the implications?


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

First step....of 12:

My name is John, and I am a baiter. 

I am here tonight because I hurt the people who love me because of my weakness for chumming for deer.

I have spells of bad attitude, bad grammar and bad spelling whenever I see others enjoying being a security-guard over a pile of rotting vegetables.

I need your help.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

MERGANZER said:


> Lets just kill all the deer. Then we won't have any problems and we wont be up late tucking them into their buck beds.
> 
> Ganzer


I just love this stuff! Ganzer, that is definitely one solution. 

And I just love it when a guy like Swamp gets caught with his pants down, so the only way he knows how to react is to call names. Crybabies? Whiners? 

Whatever. Don't get too worked up about this Swamp. 

Seriously, I don't think the baiting issue should be the type of issue that divides people. Funny thing is, an opinion on what the DNR did in this case would not even fall along "party lines". Some anti-baiters have posted here that they think the DNR was wrong, some obviously come to their defense, some pro-baiters would take the position that this is a non-issue, some would see it as hypocritical. So to take the position that any one that condemns the DNR for this is a lunatic pro-baiter grasping at straws is a bit much.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

fairfax1 said:


> First step....of 12:
> 
> My name is John, and I am a baiter.
> 
> ...


OK, you found a 12 step program for the LEO's on the cull hunt now perhaps you can point us to the 12 step program where people enjoy being a security guard over a pile of _fresh _vegetables?:lol:


----------



## BeWild (Mar 19, 2007)

Not gonna lie. I only clicked on this thread to see how many pages it was.


----------



## Dale87 (Dec 19, 2008)

I'm surprised you guys aren't more outraged at the use of silencers and hunting at night with what i'd assume was probably night vision. Imagine how quickly we could bring the population of deer under control in the SLP if we had THOSE tools to work with.


----------



## fishinmachine2 (May 7, 2004)

They must be bad hunters to have to use bait!!!:yikes: If they would have just did thier scouting. I like the response where the guy mentions killing all the deer then we wont have to worry about any of it and then we can all just go fishing!!:lol: Have a good day!!

Scott


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

How can you accept that they are shooting them at night with silenced rifles, but not accept they are using bait? None of these are options for the general public.

If you understand that the safety risk is minimal enough for them to use rifles at night because they are *professionals* that know what they are doing, why is it so difficult to accept that these same individuals may be capable of using the bait tool in the same minimal risk maner?

If you want to bait, you can legally. Just like if you want to use explosives to demolish buildings. All you have to do is start a legitimate business, get the proper credentials/licenses and get hired.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Rasputin said:


> And I just love it when a guy like Swamp gets caught with his pants down, so the only way he knows how to react is to call names. Crybabies? Whiners?
> 
> Whatever. Don't get too worked up about this Swamp.
> 
> .


Caught? Explain how I was caught doing anything? I haven't done anything, other than rationalize the dfference between using a small amount of bait to aid in a cull operation to statewide baiting during a full hunting season. The people that can't rationalize it are the folks that are letting emotions run their keyboard. Believe me, nothing on on here gets me worked up....none of it is really of any importance in the big picture of things. In a couple of months this whole issue will have been forgotten except for maybe a small few that desperately want to beable to bait....well bait legally anyway.


----------



## mich buckmaster (Nov 20, 2001)

fairfax1 said:


> First step....of 12:
> 
> My name is John, and I am a baiter.
> 
> ...


THAT IS GREAT!! :lol:


----------



## Tink (Feb 26, 2007)

Hypocritical I believe by definition yes. Will it spready disease probably not. 
2 things to note. 
Baiting in the SLP did not effectively reduce populations to safe levels for both disease and enviroment.

Baiting in a controlled enviroment to cull dear aided in a reduction of deer. 

In hunting it was a tool that did not work, in culling it is a tool that does work.
It probably actually helps lower the risk of disease transmission in these extremely overpopulated areas by reducing deer numbers, which did not occur in recreational hunting. Deer spread the disease not the pile, so reduction of deer is needed. The pile increases the chance of the spread of disease. So if the piles were not working to help decrease the population to decrease the chance of disease, than decreasing the spread of disease by eliminating the elevated risk that bait piles produce seems logical. 

But I agree it is hypocritical, but so is owning automatic weapons, missles, biologic dangers, and many other things. It does not make it wrong.


----------



## boz (Feb 17, 2010)

i cannot understand how anyone here is saying the police have a right to go above the law! this is absurd ! if there is a over population (which i don't think there is)they should have to follow the same rules as us hunters. i would loose my hunting rights goto jail be fined if i used the tactics as these so called officers of the law. to hear anyone saying they have a right is mind boggling! they are NO better than any other hunter and we hunters should have been given a chance to cull the herd also they the law have said baiting will transfer disease ha anyone who spends enough time in the woods knows that deer are social animals and they lick each other as well as there droppings all it is is a way to take money out of you'r pocket and put it in there's. WAKE UP and always question authority


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

Swamp Monster said:


> Caught? Explain how I was caught doing anything? I haven't done anything, other than rationalize the dfference between using a small amount of bait to aid in a cull operation to statewide baiting during a full hunting season. The people that can't rationalize it are the folks that are letting emotions run their keyboard. Believe me, nothing on on here gets me worked up....none of it is really of any importance in the big picture of things. In a couple of months this whole issue will have been forgotten except for maybe a small few that desperately want to beable to bait....well bait legally anyway.


 
You are caught red handed rationalizing. You just did it again - " a small amount of bait" is OK apparently to you. If that is true, then it should be OK in some form for everyone because it apparently poses no risk. 

Believe me, the only emotion I am having on this thread is mirth. This is a hoot! I don't know why you go to some much trouble to defend the DNR? It really is amusing. If you believe baiting is wrong then you should condemn them as well. Why is that so hard? They really did put you in a hard spot.


----------



## wally-eye (Oct 27, 2004)

Everyone in a tizzy over nothing. They also shot deer at night using spotlights which is not legal for hunters...........get over it...it was/is a cull hunt nothing more nothing less......


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

wally-eye said:


> Everyone in a tizzy over nothing. They also shot deer at night using spotlights which is not legal for hunters...........get over it...it was/is a cull hunt nothing more nothing less......


Tizzy? Hardly. Bewildered might be a bettter description.


----------



## Skinner 2 (Mar 19, 2004)

Hunting vs Culling two different things

Guys with crop damage permits get to use rifles and also shoot at night with said rifles in zone three. 

A hired sharpe shooter will do the same thing. night time, bait pile with night vision using a High power rilfe with supressor. Chances are however that the cops are not charging for thte operation as a hired Sharpe Shooter would be.

Pratice for cops and they ( some) need it LOL

Skinner


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Rasputin said:


> You are caught red handed rationalizing. You just did it again - " a small amount of bait" is OK apparently to you. If that is true, then it should be OK in some form for everyone because it apparently poses no risk.
> 
> .



:lol::lol: I didn't know being rational was some kind of mischevious activity that one should keep behind closed doors! I have no problem with a small amount of bait put out _in a controlled cull like this_. I do not believe that it is comparable to statewide baiting over an entire hunting season. Its an Apples to Oranges argument but since oranges aren't good deer bait, some here are trying to make it apples to apples. They are flat out wrong, it is just that simple. If the people in this argument that are wrong want to rationalize their argument, they should be pressing the NRC to allow night time hunting with spotlights and centerfire rifles in the SLP. After all, they consider bait just a tool, aren't these items tools too?


----------



## Uncle Boopoo (Sep 15, 2008)

We're not talking about Rochester Hills here. This is not a small park surrounded by houses. This is a large metro park that is bordered by 275 on 1 side. They could have easily closed the park for a period of time and let bow hunters PAY THEM to shoot a deer. They have similar hunts in other parks around the state. Why not at willow?

Please tell me they at least donated the meat?


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

QDMAMAN said:


> If I was a bettin Man I'd say you'd throw private property ownership rights under the bus to satisfy your desire to hunt property you don't currently have access to.:16suspect
> The problem here is that you view deer reduction from strictly a hunter,s point of view. Not everybody that deals with deer have that viewpoint.


You do realize that if hunters do not to do a better job of population control on private land in Michigan that you may very well witness professional snipers on private property in the future. 
For the record, although qdmaman makes some valid points; If we are choosing teams I would have to say that my views are more closely related to Michihunters on this topic, but I generally error on the side of common sense. 
If baiting is wrong it is wrong... period. Another excellent point that was made is that the park may very likely be drawing deer from surrounding property by supplying food at the point of lowest availability in the state. 
A point not made is how can one contend that the hunt will focus on doe when the majority of bucks have lost their racks at this time of the year?
<----<<<


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

Swamp Monster said:


> :lol::lol:  I have no problem with a small amount of bait put out


I think the law should be revised to say that whatever Swamp Monster thinks is no problem will be OK. 

The next time someone wants to cull some vermin, they just need to contact you and make sure you don't have a problem with it. If you say OK, then OK.

Now we are making some progress. We have just all agreed that there should be exceptions to the rule. I like it. 

Isn't it great how situaltional ethics play out?


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Rasputin said:


> I think the law should be revised to say that whatever Swamp Monster thinks is no problem will be OK.
> 
> The next time someone wants to cull some vermin, they just need to contact you and make sure you don't have a problem with it. If you say OK, then OK.
> 
> ...


If your going to quote me at least quote my complete sentence. 
No, they don't need to contact me, they need to contact the DNR and law enforcement. You do realize that those are the folks puting this plan into action. I doubt they care if they have my blessing, just as they don't care that some disapprove of the tools they are using. If you believe their should be exceptions to the rule, why don't you contact your local CO and see if they will allow you to use a spotlight this weekend while harvesting a deer. Why some people here think LEO's should play by the same rule is beyond me....its beyond ridiculous matter of fact. Law enforcement has always had tools available to them that was not available to the general public and this is once again, one of those tools.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Rasputin said:


> I think the law should be revised to say that whatever Swamp Monster thinks is no problem will be OK.


I could get used to that however! Where to start.....


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

Swamp Monster said:


> If your going to quote me at least quote my complete sentence.
> No, they don't need to contact me, they need to contact the DNR and law enforcement. You do realize that those are the folks puting this plan into action. I doubt they care if they have my blessing, just as they don't care that that some disapprove of the tools they are using. If you believe their should be exceptions to the rule, why don't you contact your local CO and see if will allow you to use a spotlight this weekend while harvesting a deer. Why some people here think LEO's should play by the same rule is beyond me....its beyond ridiculous matter of fact. Law enforcement has always had tools available to them that was not available to the general public and this is once again, one of those tools.


 
I never said they were out of line for culling deer, for hunting at night, using spotlights, any of that. I totally agree that is in their discretion. (although others have objected to that - I have not) It is not ridiculous to point out that they are inconsistent with their position about putting food on the ground for deer. All I'm saying is that at a bare minimum by their action they have watered down their argument that feeding the deer in that manner is a bad practice. It's the old "do as I say, not as I do" position of authority. If nothinig else, it hurts their credibility going forward.

For the record, I am disappointed that you don't want to be "Bait Czar".


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

Uncle Boopoo said:


> This is a large metro park that is bordered by 275 on 1 side. They could have easily closed the park for a period of time and let bow hunters PAY THEM to shoot a deer. They have similar hunts in other parks around the state. Why not at willow?


This is exactly my point, The bait is another issue altogether. But, when a landowner chooses not to use *90 days* of deer season, why should the DNR provide additional opportunities to harvest?


----------



## Direwolfe (Sep 11, 2007)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"i cannot understand how anyone here is saying the police have a right to go above the law! this is absurd ! if there is a over population (which i don't think there is)they should have to follow the same rules as us hunters. i would loose my hunting rights goto jail be fined if i used the tactics as these so called officers of the law. to hear anyone saying they have a right is mind boggling! they are NO better than any other hunter and we hunters should have been given a chance to cull the herd also they the law have said baiting will transfer disease ha anyone who spends enough time in the woods knows that deer are social animals and they lick each other as well as there droppings all it is is a way to take money out of you'r pocket and put it in there's. WAKE UP and always question authority"

I don't single out the poster quoted above (although English teachers across the land weep), merely an example. 

Wake up boys and girls. Hobby hunters do not own the deer herd, "the people" of Michigan do. That includes the non-hunting majority. So the DNR doesn't have to give us first crack at anything and the DNR is not bound by hunting rules when it executes its charter, through a non-hunting method. As for being cheaper or making money by allowing bow hunters, etc. - forget it. Turning the park over to a herd of inefficient hunters and the management costs for that make sharpshooters cheap.

What we are seeing here is the light of the oncoming train rushing towards us because we have been unable to accomplish across much of Michigan what we claim is a primary justification for hunting, i.e. herd management.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

Direwolfe said:


> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> 
> What we are seeing here is the light of the oncoming train rushing towards us because we have been unable to accomplish across much of Michigan what we claim is a primary justification for hunting, i.e. herd management.


 
Good point.


----------



## lang49 (Aug 1, 2005)

Direwolfe said:


> As for being cheaper or making money by allowing bow hunters, etc. - forget it. Turning the park over to a herd of inefficient hunters and the management costs for that make sharpshooters cheap.
> 
> 
> 
> What we are seeing here is the light of the oncoming train rushing towards us because we have been unable to accomplish across much of Michigan what we claim is a primary justification for hunting, i.e. herd management.


1. They (the land owner) is choosing not to manage the herd using the available 90 days of season. Don't blame the hunter for poor herd management - blame the land owner.

2. The landowner is free to invite whomever they wish (expert or novice) during the available season. Why they choose to do nothing is beyond me.


----------



## Bulletproof (Jul 26, 2005)

Tink said:


> 2 things to note.
> Baiting in the SLP did not effectively reduce populations to safe levels for both disease and enviroment.
> 
> Baiting in a controlled enviroment to cull dear aided in a reduction of deer.
> ...


Do you have data that *specifically* points to the *fact* that baiting does not decrease herd levels? Taken a step further, are you insinuating that it actually increases herd levels? 

Is there a god-forbidden chance that baiting may just be *one* of the tools that 'could' be employed by the public, amongst other tools/laws, that addresses our overpopulation issue. To focus blame on the 'percieved failure' of baiting to address our current predicament is not only short-sighted, but down right foolish.

If baiting successfully works for law enforcement, than why wouldn't it work for recreational hunters again?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Joe Archer said:
> 
> 
> > A point not made is how can one contend that the hunt will focus on doe when the majority of bucks have lost their racks at this time of the year?
> > <----<<<


You're killin me Joe! I thought we were tight and now you tell everybody that if you had to choose sides you dump our friendship like a bad habit.
The hunt would definitely focus on does because it is a herd reduction hunt and does are the preferred targets. The fact that bucks might get killed doesn't matter, it just makes the cities efforts less effective. It's still a dead deer when it could have been several with shooting a doe. I'm sure they're targeting does.

Still your friend,
Big T


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

Friends can and do play on opposite teams all the time. In this case, I would just pick Michihunter as team captain. :yikes:
<----<<<


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Rasputin said:


> The DNR didn't ban baiting because slob hunters littered.
> Or did they? Maybe disease was just an excuse that would go over better with the hunting public. Alot of hunters seem to think that the disease claim is just a farse.
> We all know that anyone that ever baited was a slob, they should have just told us up front that they are banning baiting because bait hunters are unethical slobs. But they didn't they said it had to do with the spread of a disease. I walk state land every year (Waterloo) and it is always littered with empty bags that bait was in. I know the bags well I used to buy them at one time.
> 
> So, we have yet another creative rationalizer. Any other creative thinkers out there? Thankyou


----------



## Bulletproof (Jul 26, 2005)

Swamp Monster said:


> I doubt they care if they have my blessing, just as they don't care that some disapprove of the tools they are using. If you believe their should be exceptions to the rule, why don't you contact your local CO and see if they will allow you to use a spotlight this weekend while harvesting a deer. Why some people here think LEO's should play by the same rule is beyond me....its beyond ridiculous matter of fact. Law enforcement has always had tools available to them that was not available to the general public and this is once again, one of those tools.


You're either completely missing the cogent point that a few on here, including myself are making, or deliberately creating obvious strawmen to attack.

We *don't care* what tools LEO's use to control deer population, that's a non-starter--be it bait, silenced rifles, spotlights, etc... We understand that guys with badges get different tools for similar jobs. To assume otherwise is beyond ridiculous matter of fact.

What we don't understand is why did we (you know, the slob hunters), at one time in the very recent past, lose this tool, that apparently is effective at reducing deer population levels?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Joe Archer said:


> Friends can and do play on opposite teams all the time. In this case, I would just pick Michihunter as team captain. :yikes:
> <----<<<


Sure Joe, elect me the one who sinks with the ship.:lol::lol:


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Bulletproof said:


> What we don't understand is why did we (you know, the slob hunters), at one time in the very recent past, lose this tool, that apparently is effective at reducing deer population levels?


 Actually looking at the population in the SLP it was not a very effective tool for reducing the population. Only because the one using the "tool" did not use the "tool" in conjunction with other "tools" offered by the state (anterless permits). The now banned "tool" when legal only was a very effective "tool" for ones personal agendas, not management reasons. So in todays world the banned "tool" can be used as a very effective "tool" for reducing populations when used by experts who know how to use the "tool" for management reasons and not personal gain.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

bucksnbows said:


> Actually looking at the population in the SLP it was not a very effective tool for reducing the population. Only because the one using the "tool" did not use the "tool" in conjunction with other "tools" offered by the state (anterless permits). The now banned "tool" when legal only was a very effective "tool" for ones personal agendas, not management reasons. So in todays world the banned "tool" can be used as a very effective "tool" for reducing populations when used by experts who know how to use the "tool" for management reasons and not personal gain.


Interesting concept. Perhaps other "tools'' should be banned as well for lack of effectiveness? Such as foodplots, sanctuaries and other "tools" that haven't done much to reduce populations either but certainly pose some risk to disease transmission? :evilsmile:evilsmile


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Bulletproof said:


> What we don't understand is why did we (you know, the slob hunters), at one time in the very recent past, lose this tool, that apparently is effective at reducing deer population levels?



No, what you don't understand is the fact that baiting, at least in the SLP was not a good tool used to reduce the deer population. If it would have been, we wouldn't have population problems here in the SLP. So, while it may be a good tool under controlled circumstances such as a park cull program, it was not an effective tool for the average hunter. And for the record, I have never once used the word "slob" in any of my posts so I think it's amusing that you chose to use that term. I've never once on this site ever mentioned bait hunters and slob hunters in the same sentence. 

Now, in the NLP with different habitat, baiting may very well be a good tool for population control.....it might also cause population problems, just ask those in the NELP.


----------



## Bulletproof (Jul 26, 2005)

Swamp Monster said:


> No, what you don't understand is the fact that baiting, at least in the SLP was not a good tool used to reduce the deer population. If it would have been, we wouldn't have population problems here in the SLP. So, while it may be a good tool under controlled circumstances such as a park cull program, it was not an effective tool for the average hunter. And for the record, I have never once used the word "slob" in any of my posts so I think it's amusing that you chose to use that term. I've never once on this site ever mentioned bait hunters and slob hunters in the same sentence.


Why is baiting only an effective tool when used in controlled circumstances in regards to population reduction?

What I do understand is that the overpopulation problem in the SLP is not a result of baiting. So why ban it? Are you suggesting that it actually increased deer numbers?

My apologies about the 'slob comment', I was not implying that you think guys who bait are slobs.


----------



## Bulletproof (Jul 26, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> Interesting concept. Perhaps other "tools'' should be banned as well for lack of effectiveness? Such as foodplots, sanctuaries and other "tools" that haven't done much to reduce populations either but certainly pose some risk to disease transmission? :evilsmile:evilsmile


Enough said, thanks MH.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Bulletproof said:


> Why is baiting only an effective tool when used in controlled circumstances in regards to population reduction?
> 
> What I do understand is that the overpopulation problem in the SLP is not a result of baiting. So why ban it? Are you suggesting that it actually increased deer numbers?
> 
> My apologies about the 'slob comment', I was not implying that you think guys who bait are slobs.


Baiting might be an effective tool outside controlled culls, but hunters are the wild card. In a controlled cull, they are shooting every deer that heads to the pile, they are not being selective. It's about racking up kill numbers. For the majority of hunters, it's not about racking up kill numbers, its about increasing the odds of seeing deer in range. Most hunters are very selective regardless what their criteria may be. They certainly aren't killing every deer that comes to the bait. Multiply that by thousands of hunters and thouands of bait sites and you get to a point of diminishing returns. We are attracting and congregating lots of deer over a longer period of time but only harvesting a small selection of those animals. The chance for disease transmission is greater. In a cull situation, the bait is likely small and only out for short periods of time while still being effective at attracting deer(especially this time of year). I do not know this for sure, but I would guess that these bait sites for these cull operations are not on the ground for long, nor are they very large because this time of year they wouldn't need to be. Again, I'm just guessing on that part. So, to sum it up, I don't think hunters using bait is a good tool in the SLP because they have different motives for using bait. Plus, the SLP habitat itself doesn't lend itself to effective baiting. In the NLP the effectiveness can be considerbly different. 

As for increasing the population, I believe it does in some instances though not likely in the SLP. In NELP club country, clubs use to bait by the semi load and so yes, those deer populations were artificially enhanced beyond what the habitat could withstand. 

No problem on the slob hunter comment, I just wanted to set the record straight that I don't think those that hunt with bait are slob hunters.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

I'll add that as far as the bait/disease issue is concerned, like others I think that transmission is possible, but not necessarily any more possible than many other natural sources. Deer are just social animals etc. Baiting is however one aspect of the disease transmission issue that man can controll so thats what they chose to do. They can't keep deer from feeding together in a bean field or licking each other etc, but they can controll supplemental feed. I do not have an issue with the methods they are using for the cull, I think it's different situation alltogether in this case. Right, wrong or otherwise, that is just my opinion.


----------



## Bulletproof (Jul 26, 2005)

Swamp Monster said:


> Baiting might be an effective tool outside controlled culls, but hunters are the wild card. In a controlled cull, they are shooting every deer that heads to the pile, they are not being selective. It's about racking up kill numbers. For the majority of hunters, it's not about racking up kill numbers, its about increasing the odds of seeing deer in range. Most hunters are very selective regardless what their criteria may be. They certainly aren't killing every deer that comes to the bait. Multiply that by thousands of hunters and thouands of bait sites and you get to a point of diminishing returns. We are attracting and congregating lots of deer over a longer period of time but only harvesting a small selection of those animals. The chance for disease transmission is greater. In a cull situation, the bait is likely small and only out for short periods of time while still being effective at attracting deer(especially this time of year). I do not know this for sure, but I would guess that these bait sites for these cull operations are not on the ground for long, nor are they very large because this time of year they wouldn't need to be. Again, I'm just guessing on that part. So, to sum it up, I don't think hunters using bait is a good tool in the SLP because they have different motives for using bait. Plus, the SLP habitat itself doesn't lend itself to effective baiting. In the NLP the effectiveness can be considerbly different.
> 
> As for increasing the population, I believe it does in some instances though not likely in the SLP. In NELP club country, clubs use to bait by the semi load and so yes, those deer populations were artificially enhanced beyond what the habitat could withstand.
> 
> No problem on the slob hunter comment, I just wanted to set the record straight that I don't think those that hunt with bait are slob hunters.


Food plots can be controlled too and are also *apparently* ineffective at controlling deer populations. Hunters using them as a tool are surely just as much as a wild card as bait guys too, right? Are you suggesting that you are comfortable with this, in light of bait being banned? Aren't both, possible vectors for disease?


----------



## Bulletproof (Jul 26, 2005)

Swamp Monster said:


> I'll add that as far as the bait/disease issue is concerned, like others I think that transmission is possible, but not necessarily any more possible than many other natural sources. Deer are just social animals etc. Baiting is however one aspect of the disease transmission issue that man can controll so thats what they chose to do. They can't keep deer from feeding together in a bean field or licking each other etc, but they can controll supplemental feed. I do not have an issue with the methods they are using for the cull, I think it's different situation alltogether in this case. Right, wrong or otherwise, that is just my opinion.


My argument is, ultimately, not about disease transmission. IMO, that's just a big strawman/red herring that diverts attention away from the issue of banning a tool that 'might' be a useful method, among others, to be employed to lower the overpopulation problem. Which arguably, might have a greater impact on, yup you guessed it, disease transmission.

Dinner time. Good talk.


----------



## jlcrss (May 17, 2006)

They should live trap them and let them go on my property.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tink said:


> MichiHunter or Munster would be better to supply the data, but if I remember correctly the doe harvest went up post bait ban in SLP. The DNR has not to my knowledge did a specific study on harvest numbers and bait. But what is apparent is that the numbers were growing with bait or at least not shrinking. Therefore bait was not an effective tool to aid in the harvest to a great degree for the majority of the public. If the public were to shoot all the does that came to the bait it would be very different.


 
I don't think that you can take one years harvest numbers and reach any sort of reasonable conclusion regarding the impact of the baiting ban or the effectiveness of bait, in terms of facilitating harvest. The SLP antlerless harvest increased slightly overall in 2008, the first season after the introduction of the baiting ban. It was also the first season after the introduction of the EAS and the additional antlerless harvest during the EAS, when bait is not used (legally), accounts for almost all of the antlerless harvest increase over the previous year. The problem with making assumptions about the effectiveness of bait in the SLP is; we don't know how many hunters continued to bait after the ban and we don't know how many hunters in the SLP utilized bait prior to the ban. We do know that the archery harvest and the late antlerless season harvests were down substantially after the ban and that hunters during both of those seasons tended to utilize bait more then hunters in other seasons prior to the ban but it's still just a guess to draw any sort of firm conclusions about cause and effect.

I would paint the issue in broader terms, simply that at a minimum there is no evidence that prior to the ban baiting had a negative impact on antlerless harvest numbers and barring any definitive proof that baiting substantially increases the potential for the spread of disease, it should be a legal option for those who want to use it. As of this point in time, there is pretty substantial evidence that CWD is not present in the free ranging herd in Michigan and in areas where disease is not present, the use of bait poses no more of a threat in terms of potentially spreading disease then food plots, water holes, farm crops, gardens, ornamental shrubs or cattle feed stored in fields, all of which are permissible under current law. It's my opinion that anyone who claims baiting presents a greater threat then any of these other vectors is either woefully ignorant or patently disingenuous, take your pick.

I'm further bothered by the apparent ignorance of the DNR biologist quoted in the above mentioned article.

_"We only allow them to use 2 gallons at a time, and then they have to broadcast it (spread it around)," she said. "They're mostly using corn and a few apples, so this isn't like the old bait piles that were dumped in one place and had deer feeding nose-to-nose. And they have to clean the bait up after five days."_

It's painfully obvious that she is either totally clueless about the legal quantities of bait that have been allowed in Michigan for the past 7 years or so or else she is intentionally misrepresenting the facts to deflect criticism from the apparent hypocrisy entailed in the DNR authorizing the use of bait after telling hunters that the use of bait does not facilitate the harvest of deer. Is Ms. Bissel stating for the record that broadcasting corn in quantities of 2 gallons or less eliminates the potential for nose-to-nose contact? Interesting, to say the least. 

Having said all of that, I think this thread is actually pretty silly. I have no problem with the DNR using whatever tactics they deem appropriate to harvest more antlerless deer in the SLP. Their decision to use bait to facilitate the harvest of antlerless deer simply validates the effectiveness of bait in positioning animals in specific locations, allowing hunters to make clean and effective harvests, despite the ridiculous propaganda that the DNR's public relations department spewed forth during their attempts to justify the baiting ban.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

I understand your point bentduck as I believe that transparency and good communications avoid many problems. However I do not believe this would have been a moot point as the dnr created the double standard. If their rational was sound for hunting season, then it should have been sound for their hunts or their sanctioned hunts.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

Swamp Monster said:


> Baiting might be an effective tool outside controlled culls, but hunters are the wild card. In a controlled cull, they are shooting every deer that heads to the pile, they are not being selective. It's about racking up kill numbers. For the majority of hunters, it's not about racking up kill numbers, its about increasing the odds of seeing deer in range. Most hunters are very selective regardless what their criteria may be. They certainly aren't killing every deer that comes to the bait. Multiply that by thousands of hunters and thouands of bait sites and you get to a point of diminishing returns. We are attracting and congregating lots of deer over a longer period of time but only harvesting a small selection of those animals. The chance for disease transmission is greater. In a cull situation, the bait is likely small and only out for short periods of time while still being effective at attracting deer(especially this time of year). I do not know this for sure, but I would guess that these bait sites for these cull operations are not on the ground for long, nor are they very large because this time of year they wouldn't need to be. Again, I'm just guessing on that part. So, to sum it up, I don't think hunters using bait is a good tool in the SLP because they have different motives for using bait. Plus, the SLP habitat itself doesn't lend itself to effective baiting. In the NLP the effectiveness can be considerbly different.
> 
> As for increasing the population, I believe it does in some instances though not likely in the SLP. In NELP club country, clubs use to bait by the semi load and so yes, those deer populations were artificially enhanced beyond what the habitat could withstand.
> 
> No problem on the slob hunter comment, I just wanted to set the record straight that I don't think those that hunt with bait are slob hunters.


Ridge, here's my post again, Please read it carefully and tell me why it was ok for you to assume that I suggested hunters kill more than they legally could and where I state that one should take long ill advised shots at deer? If your going to quote me then at least quote correctly...it's not that hard to do it's in writing! You can spin your argument however you would like, but don't fabricate lies to try and support you position...makes you look kind of pathetic.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

I'm suprised this hasn't been brought up but isn't baiting legal in Michigan, at least the UP? Funny how I don't remember anyone calling the dnd hypocrites then but do it under a controleld cull and watch out. :lol: Entertaining anyway!


----------



## Tink (Feb 26, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> I would paint the issue in broader terms, simply that at a minimum there is no evidence that prior to the ban baiting had a negative impact on antlerless harvest numbers and barring any definitive proof that baiting substantially increases the potential for the spread of disease, it should be a legal option for those who want to use it. As of this point in time, there is pretty substantial evidence that CWD is not present in the free ranging herd in Michigan and in areas where disease is not present, the use of bait poses no more of a threat in terms of potentially spreading disease then food plots, water holes, farm crops, gardens, ornamental shrubs or cattle feed stored in fields, all of which are permissible under current law. It's my opinion that anyone who claims baiting presents a greater threat then any of these other vectors is either woefully ignorant or patently disingenuous, take your pick.
> 
> 
> Having said all of that, I think this thread is actually pretty silly. I have no problem with the DNR using whatever tactics they deem appropriate to harvest more antlerless deer in the SLP. Their decision to use bait to facilitate the harvest of antlerless deer simply validates the effectiveness of bait in positioning animals in specific locations, allowing hunters to make clean and effective harvests, despite the ridiculous propaganda that the DNR's public relations department spewed forth during their attempts to justify the baiting ban.


I agree with these comments. I also will state that the increase in harvest was not likely the cause of a baiting ban. I will however reidurate that the ban of bait made sense to reduce the risk of the spread of disease. Whether it was needed in our case hear in michigan is another story.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

I see a long standing precedence for dealing with over population issues beyond means we sportsman can use. It's not uncommon for agencies to have fish kills on bodies of waters where they feel the balance has tilted too far for a certain species. It's been that way for a long time and it's rarely questioned. 

I would hate to think that the solution for asian carp would be hamstringed to only hook and line, or bow. I would hope drastic measures can be taken to insure the health of the Great Lakes. While deer are a wonderful animal for us sportsman to pursue, they can also be an invasive species where no checks and balances exist.


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> It's my opinion that anyone who claims baiting presents a greater threat then any of these other vectors is either woefully ignorant or patently disingenuous, take your pick.


Greater, as in additional. Whether the risk is acceptable or not is the argument, not if there is greater risk. The "woefully ignorant or patently disingenuous" statement, can be a double edged sword when you imply absolutism like you did there.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tink said:


> I will however reidurate that the ban of bait made sense to reduce the risk of the spread of disease. Whether it was needed in our case hear in michigan is another story.


The ban may have made sense on paper when viewing the issue in a vacuum but the reality of the situation is that banning bait when there are so many other potential vectors for the transmission of communicable cervid diseases like CWD is essentially a meaningless gesture, who's primary motive is to give the appearance of doing something to deal with the potential threat. 

The apt analogy is taking a gallon bucket of water that has ten holes in the bottom and plugging one of them. You can try and convince everyone that plugging one hole is worthwhile but your going to look pretty silly saying so while holding an empty bucket and standing in a puddle of water.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Swamp Monster said:


> Baiting might be an effective tool outside controlled culls, but hunters are the wild card.[ In a controlled cull, they are shooting every deer that heads to the pile, they are not being selective]. It's about racking up kill numbers. For the majority of hunters, it's not about racking up kill numbers,[ its about increasing the odds of seeing deer in range. Most hunters are very selective regardless what their criteria may be. They certainly aren't killing every deer that comes to the bait]. Multiply that by thousands of hunters and thouands of bait sites and you get to a point of diminishing returns. We are attracting and congregating lots of deer over a longer period of time but only harvesting a small selection of those animals. The chance for disease transmission is greater.[ In a cull situation, the bait is likely small and only out for short periods of time while still being effective at attracting deer(especially this time of year). I do not know this for sure, but I would guess that these bait sites for these cull operations are not on the ground for long, nor are they very large because this time of year they wouldn't need to be. Again, I'm just guessing on that part]. So, to sum it up,[ I don't think hunters using bait is a good tool in the SLP because they have different motives for using bait. Plus, the SLP habitat itself doesn't lend itself to effective baiting.] In the NLP the effectiveness can be considerbly different.
> .


Pleae read your words that are in brackets unless you wish to deny your own words. The first set of brackets state that the cull hunts were not being selective yet the state mandated that bucks could not be taken. So your statement is not true.

The second set of brackets talk about getting deer in range. Is that not exactly the purpose for the bait piles during the cull hunts? The goals that you compared were the same. Again you speak of hunters being selective the cull hunters were mandated to be selective also.

In the next set of brackets you state that the cull piles were small and did not stay long. The mandate limits of 2 gals were identical for both the cull hunters and the season hunters. You then state that the piles of the cull hunters did not stay long. I have never seen a 2 gal amt stay long and neither does anyone I know. Remember that we are comparing legal hunters to cull hunters. If you are making a comparison to illegal hunters, then that is something else altogether. You state that the piles were not large because of the time of year; they were 2 gals in both the cull hunts and the season hunts because that was the mandates set-had nothing to do with season. You stated that you might be guessing. I can't argue that point.

In the last set of brackets you state that the habitat in the slp does not lend itself to baiting. If that is the case why were the cull hunts using it in the SLP? What are the different motives between the cull hunters and the seasonal hunters? Do they not both want to attract deer so they can kill deer within range?

No where in this thread was it said that the comparison between the dnr sanctioned cull hunt was only being compared to slp seasonal hunting.

Before casting aspersions on my writing, perhaps it would be well to read your own written words unless your defense is only to place names and labels that are false and cannot be supported.

This thread is not about a match between the two of us. It is a comparison between a dnr sanctioned hunt and the season hunts by legal hunters. It is also a comparison in the two different sets of rules sanctioned by the dnr.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

ridgewalker said:


> Pleae read your words that are in brackets unless you wish to deny your own words. The first set of brackets state that the cull hunts were not being selective yet the state mandated that bucks could not be taken. So your statement is not true.
> 
> The second set of brackets talk about getting deer in range. Is that not exactly the purpose for the bait piles during the cull hunts? The goals that you compared were the same. Again you speak of hunters being selective the cull hunters were mandated to be selective also.
> 
> ...


Listen, you made two assumptions...one that I suggested people kill more than their tags would allow and another that I advocated long ill advised shots. Those were assumptions on your part and nowhere in my post did I suggest those, not even with your littlr brackets. You can dance around this fact or you can be a man about it. Again, please tell me where I advocated either and if you can't you're a liar, plain and simple. I and a number of others here are seriously questioning your integrity. Either find my quotes or shut up. 

I did not know that the state was not allowing bucks to be taken during the cull so yes, I was wrong in that they were being selective, but that has nothing with the fact that you are assuming that I advocate breaking the law or poor ethical behavior.


----------



## Swamp Monster (Jan 11, 2002)

ridgewalker said:


> Before casting aspersions on my writing, perhaps it would be well to read your own written words unless your defense is only to place names and labels that are false and cannot be supported.
> 
> This thread is not about a match between the two of us.


I'm not casting asperations on your writing, I'm questioning your comprehesion and your conscience. You are right, it is not a thread between us but then again, I'm not the one making false assumptions either. When someone assumes that I advocate breaking the law and unethical behavior, I'll call them on it.


----------



## DanSS26 (Jul 10, 2008)

bentduck said:


> I get automatic PR's sent to me from the MDNR on every issue you can imagine...From eagle poaching to live bait bulletins. Never got one on this situation. Probably just an oversight


 I have not seen anything that says the DNR are doing the cull, other than in this thread. So it would not be the DNR's responsibility to announce it. The Huron-Clinton Metroparks are conducting the cull. They are using the Metropark Police that have been through special training to conduct the cull. 

So all this blaming the DNR for using bait is a mute point. The DNR are not using bait.

All the publicity this has had in the press over the years has never mentioned the DNR conducting culls. All the announcements in my local paper have always stated Metropark Police are doing them.




.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

DanSS26 said:


> I have not seen anything that says the DNR are doing the cull, other than in this thread. So it would not be the DNR's responsibility to announce it. The Huron-Clinton Metroparks are conducting the cull. They are using the Metropark Police that have been through special training to conduct the cull.
> 
> So all this blaming the DNR for using bait is a mute point. The DNR are not using bait.
> 
> All the publicity this has had in the press over the years has never mentioned the DNR conducting culls. All the announcements in my local paper have always stated Metropark Police are doing them.


The DNR is THE controller of what, where, when, and how. Without their approval, it does not happen.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

_ I have not seen anything that says the DNR are doing the cull, other than in this thread. So it would not be the DNR's responsibility to announce it. The Huron-Clinton Metroparks are conducting the cull. They are using the Metropark Police that have been through special training to conduct the cull. 

So all this blaming the DNR for using bait is a mute point. The DNR are not using bait.

All the publicity this has had in the press over the years has never mentioned the DNR conducting culls. All the announcements in my local paper have always stated Metropark Police are doing them._

If you look at the start of this thread, it would appear the DNR is overseeing this entire situation which, unless they are there to make arrests for poaching, seems odd for them if they are not involved as you suggest. You say that The DNR are not using bait. Does that, somehow justify this? 

Since I don't believe they (DNR) are there to issue citations for shooting deer over a bait pile, I don't understand why they are there at all if not involved. Like I said earlier, if a farmer was to do this same thing under his "block permit" (license to cull deer) he would be issued a citation for illegaly shooting deer (poaching). I don't understand the difference ... other than one approach generates revenue and the other doesn't  




.[/QUOTE]


----------



## DanSS26 (Jul 10, 2008)

Because someone posted in a forum that the DNR are doing it, then it must mean it is true.

I am not familiar with the process at Willow Metropark, but I would assume it is the same as the one at Kensington Metropark. It has generated a lot of local press here in my community over the last ten years. It never once stated the DNR are doing the culls or are even that they are on site for them. It always stated the Metropark Police were conducting the culls. I would guess they got permission to conduct them from the DNR but have not seen the specifics on that. My point is everyone here is saying the DNR are using bait. That is not the case. The Metropark Police are. (At least in the Kensington culls) They may have given permission, but I cannot find any documentation stating such. Does the DNR inform the public when farmers are doing culls?


.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

ridgewalker said:


> 1) Are you suggesting that hunters "rack up kill numbers" beyond their legal tags? I don't believe that, but it seems suggested by your statement. Unlike a dnr sanctioned slaughter, the hunter IS limited in the number of deer they are allowed to take.
> 
> 2) Is it not the object of hunting to get deer within range or do you believe in taking them at a distance that has the probability of not making a quick kill or a kill at all. You seem to suggest that having a deer within range is a bad thing.  I will not attempt to take a deer that is not within range.


Please note I was asking for clarification, they are questions even though I forgot a question mark in the second point. I will admit that the use of the English language is not my strongest suit.

You stated that both of these examples resulted in greater opportunity for disease transmission due to leaving bait and thus are negatives. When in fact the cull hunters were selective by gender and both used the same amt of bait to get deer in range so what was your point?? Your post first stated that because most hunters do not "rack up kill number" that bait is left. You stated that hunters used bait "to get deer in range" thereby being selective which is also what the cull hunters do. By the very study of the field of logic, which it seems that you do not hold to, if one side(referring to the statements not to cull hunters and season hunters) is negative the reciprocal (opposite must be positive.)

You clearly chose to omit seeing my words: "I don't believe that." If you propose that not killing every deer and getting deer into range are negatives because they leave bait (which are assumptions-I contend 2 gals of bait are not left.) then what alternative do you propose? If it is not killing every deer or getting deer into range, then what is your alternative? (I am rephrasing my initial questions in an attempt to make them more understandable.) If it is not baiting then the dnr (as they sanction these hunts, even if they may not police them) is going against your very assertions or are you speaking both positions at the same time. (I was guilty of that in another thread:lol The questions I posed were not answered as such but responded to in a defensive name calling tirade. My integrity is unwavering and certainly not diminished by your attacks. Your attacks in this manner reflect on you and your behavior as you choose to use them and do not reflect on my writing. Perhaps this thread has endured long enough when the only counterpoint becomes that of personal attacks.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

DanSS26 said:


> Because someone posted in a forum that the DNR are doing it, then it must mean it is true.
> 
> I am not familiar with the process at Willow Metropark, but I would assume it is the same as the one at Kensington Metropark. It has generated a lot of local press here in my community over the last ten years. It never once stated the DNR are doing the culls or are even that they are on site for them. It always stated the Metropark Police were conducting the culls. I would guess they got permission to conduct them from the DNR but have not seen the specifics on that. My point is everyone here is saying the DNR are using bait. That is not the case. The Metropark Police are. (At least in the Kensington culls) They may have given permission, but I cannot find any documentation stating such. Does the DNR inform the public when farmers are doing culls?.


The question is simple...Is the DNR _allowing _bait piles to be used to shoot deer over? By not enforcing the law in this case, some are wondering about the obvious double standard. 

Issuing Press Releases on block permits are not needed because they (block permits) are governed by existing laws and regulations and strictly enforced...(or they should be). I would think it is in the best interest of the DNR's credibility and accountability to disclose events ahead of time,that can be viewed as illogical, unethical or maybe even illegal depending on your perspective. By allowing individuals license to do an "end around" existing game laws that are not consistent with other culling methods (block permits) is in very poor judgement.

It's too late now...the public relations damage has been already been done but it could have been avoided with a simple call to Eric Sharp, Bill parker, Tom Campbell or other media outlet. As it is...It just looks like another in a long line of poor decisions by the DNR from a PR standpoint Just my opinion.


----------



## DanSS26 (Jul 10, 2008)

Not trying to start another debate here, just pointing out that it is not the DNR doing it as stated many times in this thread  even in the title. It does not say DNR allowing baiting. I understand what you are saying though.
And I did not know it was the DNRs responsibility to inform the public when a separate entity is doing culls. The Metroparks did a very good job of publicizing it in my community.


.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

standsetter said:


> Greater, as in additional. Whether the risk is acceptable or not is the argument, not if there is greater risk. The "woefully ignorant or patently disingenuous" statement, can be a double edged sword when you imply absolutism like you did there.


Purely speculative, the assertion that allowing baiting adds any additional risk of the transmission of disease. You can make just as cogent an argument that allowing baiting could have potentially limited the spread of disease by increasing the chances that the handful of free ranging deer who might have come into contact with the infected deer at the index facility could have been harvested more effectively, thus decreasing the potential for them ranging farther afield in search of food and thus infecting other deer. The fact that DNR sanctioned "snipers" choose to utilize bait to increase their chances of harvesting deer in a specific location would lend credence to the theory that baiting facilitates deer harvest.


----------



## Tink (Feb 26, 2007)

ridgewalker said:


> In the next set of brackets you state that the cull piles were small and did not stay long. The mandate limits of 2 gals were identical for both the cull hunters and the season hunters. You then state that the piles of the cull hunters did not stay long. I have never seen a 2 gal amt stay long and neither does anyone I know. Remember that we are comparing legal hunters to cull hunters. If you are making a comparison to illegal hunters, then that is something else altogether. You state that the piles were not large because of the time of year; they were 2 gals in both the cull hunts and the season hunts because that was the mandates set-had nothing to do with season. You stated that you might be guessing. I can't argue that point.
> 
> In the last set of brackets you state that the habitat in the slp does not lend itself to baiting. If that is the case why were the cull hunts using it in the SLP? What are the different motives between the cull hunters and the seasonal hunters? Do they not both want to attract deer so they can kill deer within range?


 
From my own obeservations in SLP, when I used to bait (Couple years before bait ban). My 1 gallon of bait would sometimes last for several weeks. Note it was only 1 gallon. The cull hunt piles will not be there for a couple of weeks as they will have to be picked up. I acknowledge it is not the same everywhere, but bait in SLP "can" stick around for quite a long time. 

The largest variable affecting your second paragraph above is the season in which it is occuring. It is February now and the deer have picked the easy foods already. Baiting in Oct-Dec probably does yield less results as there is significantly more readily available foods, I agree in places it is still very effective but with snow on the ground now and fields picked over it is probably more effective now. 

Just noting on two of your issues that I don't totally agree with. Not a personal jab.


----------



## Quadd4 (Jan 15, 2005)

Bio,

Can you recognize these differences:

Baiting is done to attract dear
Food Plots are done to attract dear
vs
Farming is done to provide for mankind
Natural food sources (trees and such) are just that!

What is so hard to understand about these differences?


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

Quadd4 said:


> Bio,
> 
> Can you recognize these differences:
> 
> ...


 

The difference Is baiting is Not legal, Food plots are legal. Thats the difference


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

TwodogsNate said:


> The difference Is baiting is Not legal, Food plots are legal. Thats the difference


The *only* difference I might add. 

Bio obviously needs to get out more if he thinks apple trees only grow in well manicured settings. Of course we could always switch apples to acorns and see what his next claim of wisdom might be.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Munster;
> 
> Those apple trees look like they are in a mowed yard, whereas the baited piles are in a forest with no apple trees around. Now, do you put those trees in your trunk when driving to deer camp and carry them back and put a tree near each of your stands? How do you keep them producing apples in December? Just curious. There are not any apples left around my trees in December. Funny thing. I kinda think there is a difference if I can continue to put more in the same 10 X 10 foot space all the way through January 1st, and do it in a cleared spot in the snow. Don't you really?
> 
> ...


Bio -

I hate to break it to you but there are more apple trees then the one that I posted a picture of. :lol:

Here is a pic of a couple of heirloom apple trees on one of the farms that I hunt on. This pic was taken from my blind on Nov. 23rd. Do you really think that all of those apples will have dropped by December? 

I see heirloom trees up here still holding their fruit into January. You won't find that with modern hybrids which are designed to ripen earlier but a lot of old trees retain their fruit for a long time, well past hunting season. Amazingly enough, they continue to drop their fruit in roughly that same 10 x 10 foot area around the base of the tree, for several months, a lot longer then most bait piles are utilized. So I'd have to say that in that case there is virtually no difference in terms of impact between the apples under those trees and ones placed in the woods. If you can draw a distinction, you are really grasping. 

As to my thesis, I'll repeat it again for those that are a little slow on the uptake. In areas where disease is known to be present, then voluntary actions such as baiting, food plots, water holes, mineral licks, piles of culled ag crops and stored animal feed should be precluded. In areas where disease is not present, then all of the above voluntary practices should be legal.


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

Michihunter said:


> The *only* difference I might add.
> 
> Bio obviously needs to get out more if he thinks apple trees only grow in well manicured settings. Of course we could always switch apples to acorns and see what his next claim of wisdom might be.


 

Another difference Is Food plots are grown On site.

Bait Is Not


----------



## Quadd4 (Jan 15, 2005)

TwodogsNate said:


> The difference Is baiting is Not legal, Food plots are legal. Thats the difference


I (we) are speaking in terms of disease transmittal! 

We all know about the legality between the two but it shouldn't require a law to force people to do what's right in protecting the resource. Especially amongst us who get the enjoyment from it!

Also, how would you feel if the DNR concluded that your grown on-site food plot was deemed a CWD transmittal source,,,,, would you be saying ....... What.. what.... They said it was legal... Not my fault.


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

bioactive said:


> I'm pretty sure it is the same reason that GW Bush orchestrated 911.
> 
> You let us know when you get to the bottom of it.:lol:


Like I said in my post, it is only an opinion. You nor anyone else has to agree with it. Since you seem to be "pretty sure" about 911, how bout' you offer your proof? As for me, I have no proof about the baiting issue, only an opinion. You being the educated man that you are, I would have to assume that you know the difference.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

TwodogsNate said:


> Another difference Is Food plots are grown On site.
> 
> Bait Is Not


As opposed to bait which is grown ......................in a store?


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

TwodogsNate said:


> Another difference Is Food plots are grown On site.
> 
> Bait Is Not


 

ON SITE Food plots are grown on your property


BAIT IS NOT


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

TwodogsNate said:


> ON SITE Food plots are grown on your property
> 
> 
> BAIT IS NOT


They aren't? Why not? And does it make a difference where it's grown? If I have 100 acres of corn and 400 acres of woods and I want to take some corn to the woods is that baiting? Or because it was grown on my property I'll be fine?


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> As to my thesis, I'll repeat it again for those that are a little slow on the uptake. In areas where disease is known to be present, then voluntary actions such as baiting, food plots, water holes, mineral licks, piles of culled ag crops and stored animal feed should be precluded. In areas where disease is not present, then all of the above voluntary practices should be legal.


Well, your thesis still isn't clear to me. I'm glad to see you qualify it to areas where the disease is known to be present. So, since we know it was present in a facility in MI recently, and we know animals escape from such facilities (I know that well having feral Russian boars on my farm), then you mean our state now. 

If I already have a water hole should I fill it in? What if I have mineral springs (I do). 

You didn't mention cutting those apple trees down:lol:. But you sure like to show pictures of them. Again, if you decide not to sit in that spot, do you uproot the tree and move it over to other stands? Just curious:lol:. After all, it is exactly like bait (according to you), which means it is portable and I can put it in the truck and take it up north, right? Same with my food plots. Just throw it in the trunk and take it where I want it. After all, if food plots and bait are just alike, then I should be able to take my food plot with me if I want to shift my stand by 100 yards, right? 

You like to show pictures of hay bales being eaten by deer as well. I never have once seen, in decades of hunting and living in this state, any deer feeding off haybales which when stored on farms are virtually always laying in fields that have green hay available. Perhaps your pictures are from some western state, non-ag area?


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

Michihunter said:


> They aren't? Why not? And does it make a difference where it's grown? If I have 100 acres of corn and 400 acres of woods and I want to take some corn to the woods is that baiting? Or because it was grown on my property I'll be fine?


 
I agree with you on the fact that plots & bait are essentially kinda the same thing. Plots are legal, Baiting is not.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Quadd4 said:


> Bio,
> 
> Can you recognize these differences:
> 
> ...


I can notice the difference between ag and deer attraction, but can you notice the difference between food plots and bait? Just because they are used for the same thing does not make them equal.

A 70 mm projector is used to show movies, and a 22 inch TV is used to show movies. 

Therefore they are the same thing, right?

A Corvette is used for transportation, and so is a Prius, so they are the same thing, right?

A MacDonald's meal is meant to feed people, and a meal at a 5-star restaurant is meant to feed people. 

Same thing right?

If you think the disease transmission potential from a 10 X 10 bait pile and a 1/2 acre food plot are the same, you have not thought deeply about it. It means you are thinking emotionally about it. The logic of equating them just doesn't make sense.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

TwodogsNate said:


> I agree with you on the fact that plots & bait are essentially the same thing. Plots are legal, Baiting is not.


Most people with a semblance of reason normally do agree that they are the same. Then you have others who will try to justify just about anything in fear of being called out for the hypocrites they are. When people realize that one is no different than the other and that both are potential vectors for disease transmission, then perhaps there won't be so much controversy with the topic. But you can bet if disease were ever to break out and foodplots were listed as the same high risk as bait, these same people crying about it will be the very same ones saying to to hell with the DNR.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Bio -
> 
> they continue to drop their fruit in roughly that same 10 x 10 foot area around the base of the tree,


You saying that with a straight face? The apples from those trees are all falling in a 10 X 10 area? Know how big 10 X 10 feet is? Or do you use a "man" ruler to make measurements?:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Anybody reading this think those apples are falling in a 10 X 10 area?:lol:


----------



## Quadd4 (Jan 15, 2005)

I think that one positive infected CWD deer has the same potential of spreading it's disease around corn that is grown in a food plot or corn that is thrown on the ground. 

The law folks say one is bad and outlawed while the other is good? Right! 

Would you be saying this too? 
What.. what.... They said it was legal... Not my fault.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

bioactive said:


> If you think the disease transmission potential from a 10 X 10 bait pile and a 1/2 acre food plot are the same, you have not thought deeply about it. It means you are thinking emotionally about it. The logic of equating them just doesn't make sense.


Knowing prions stay in the dirt for years and years and that urine and feces are focal points for disease, lets go ahead an do as Bio suggests and think deeply about it. 

A 10x10 baitpile for a couple of weeks a year vs a foodplot that is established for months at a time and sometimes all year round? A Food plot that is planted in the same place for years at a time vs a baitpile that is used a couple of weeks and at different locations? 

Yep it's pretty darn obvious to those in deep thought that food plots aren't very similar.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Michihunter said:


> Most people with a semblance of reason normally do agree that they are the same. Then you have others who will try to justify just about anything in fear of being called out for the hypocrites they are. When people realize that one is no different than the other and that both are potential vectors for disease transmission, then perhaps there won't be so much controversy with the topic. But you can bet if disease were ever to break out and foodplots were listed as the same high risk as bait, these same people crying about it will be the very same ones saying to to hell with the DNR.


I will abide by all laws if the DNR decides to outlaw food plots. The problem for you is, it will never happen. Even though both can act as vectors for disease, no-one ever said otherwise that I have heard. That's not the issue. The issue is relative risk. You have a theory that the relative risk of bait is near that of food plots, but experts completely disagree with you. That is one of the reason they don't outlaw food plots. The other is that it is virtually unenforceable.

To say a 10 X 10 bait pile is the "same as" a 1 acre food plot is simply ridiculous. To say that the food plot does not bear risk would be equally ridiculous, and I have never said that and you know it. The deal is that the difference in risk is huge.


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

Michihunter said:


> Most people with a semblance of reason normally do agree that they are the same. Then you have others who will try to justify just about anything in fear of being called out for the hypocrites they are. When people realize that one is no different than the other and that both are potential vectors for disease transmission, then perhaps there won't be so much controversy with the topic. But you can bet if disease were ever to break out and foodplots were listed as the same high risk as bait, these same people crying about it will be the very same ones saying to to hell with the DNR.


 
BIO had a good point, Bait is In a small area. Most plots are 1/2 acre or bigger which is a big difference. The other factors are If the DNR went to ban Food plots they would be spinning there wheels. What are you going to do ban certain seeds? If you did then guys would plant Alfalfa,corn,soybeans and have the local farmer cut It for his livestock. 

I think the DNR gave Baiting the AXE because that made more sense than anything else. It also Is something you can enforce.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

TwodogsNate said:


> BIO had a good point, Bait is In a small area. Most plots are 1/2 acre or bigger which is a big difference. The other factors are If the DNR went to ban Food plots they would be spinning there wheels. What are you going to do ban certain seeds? If you did then guys would plant Alfalfa,corn,soybeans and have the local farmer cut It for his livestock.
> 
> I think the DNR gave Baiting the AXE because that made more sense than anything else. It also Is something you can enforce.


DNR has already warned of root based vegetable food plots. Some just choose to ignore it because it hasn't been made illegal.  And foodplots would be easy to ban just by using "intent to feed wildliife" in the verbage.

As for the size argument, perhaps you aren't aware of the lifespan of a prion and how it survives in dirt. Or where deer defecate on a daily basis for months at a time as opposed to a few weeks. And how foodplots are MORE susceptible to both those things than any legal baitpile could ever be due to the longevity of it being used and the permanence of its location..


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

pescadero said:


> Correct.
> 
> It is ONE of the many factors, and the predominant one, in disease spread.
> 
> That doesn't change the fact that large scale baiting increases the risk.


As opposed to large scale foodplotting? Large scale oak stands? Large scale orchards? Large scale ag lands? Large scale bedding areas? All of which carry a large scale "permanence" and "longevity of availability" with their title as opposed to the temporary nature of a baitpile? C'mon Pescy, you're grasping here.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Hmmm....instead of answering the question he's starting to repeat himself.
> 
> Ok, if you don't like apples......how about this one. Again, what is the substantive difference other then legality?
> 
> ...










[/quote]



Simple - one can be easily regulated with little cost to Michigan's economy and citizenry. The other cannot.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

pescadero said:


> no - we're arguing there is less risk the more limited, spacially and temporally, the placement of bait is.


 bingo!!!


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

pescadero said:


> Simple - one can be easily regulated with little cost to Michigan's economy and citizenry. The other cannot.


How tough is it to remove one word- NOT- from the following regulation? 

&#8220;Bait&#8221; means a substance composed of grains, minerals, salt, fruit, vegetables, hay, or any other food materials,
whether natural or manufactured, which may lure, entice or attract deer. *Bait does not include the establishment
and maintenance of plantings for wildlife*, foods found scattered solely as the result of normal agricultural
planting or harvesting practices,


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> Disease ABSOLUTELY IS present, and always has been.
> 
> TB, EHF, CWD, and on and on.
> 
> ...


The potential incidence of CWD was the genesis of the current peninsula wide baiting ban, not TB, not blue tongue, not Lyme disease.....CWD. That is the justification that the DNR used for banning bait.

So you think it's delusional to think that no other deer in Michigan, either captive or free ranging are infected with CWD? Please provide an iota (or for that matter even a scintilla ) of evidence to support that claim. :SHOCKED:


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> Simple - one can be easily regulated with little cost to Michigan's economy and citizenry. The other cannot.


Easily regulated and with little cost to Michigan's economy and citizenry? :lol:

I want some of what you're smoking! 

Next to speed limits, the baiting ban is probably one of the least enforcible and most ignored public policies around. That pretty much rules out easily regulated. 

If it was enforcible and hunters were not still buying bait, a dept. of ag. commodities specialist estimated that the ban could have a primary impact of a $50 million dollar loss to the states economy and that does not take into account the secondary impact, due to loss of incidental commerce, that could easily run into the hundreds of millions. Only a democrat would see that kind of negative economic impact as "little cost". :lol:

Btw, we were primarily talking about risk mitigation and the potential for the spread of disease. Maybe you can tell me what the substantive difference between the two photos is in that regard?


----------



## FERG 06 (Oct 6, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Maybe FF or another "Impartial" judge can answer a simple question for me,





bentduck said:


> I would like to repeat my question to you.....:help:


Good luck. I haven't gotten an answer yet to my question posted many pages ago. What is a "Hobby Hunter"?



bioactive said:


> Deer concentrate locally in ag fields near their entrance and exit corridors......


Hmmmmmmm......:16suspect Oops, :shhh:



Michihunter said:


> QUOTE]
> 
> Sorry dude, you're just :banghead3 :lol::lol::lol:
> Pm coming soon after I catch up on some sleep so I can think straight. Got a couple of questions for you regarding another matter.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Bio, ever seen a bait pile larger then 10 x 10?


Post the 2 galon limit I never saw one nearly that LARGE.

After the law change to limit baiting, I generally saw amounts around 1-2x the legal legal amount - but in a pile. Say 3'x3' at the most.

Before the 2 gallon limit? Heh... most bait piles were approximately conical in shape and anywhere from 2'x'2 to 20'x20'.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Michihunter said:


> As opposed to large scale foodplotting?


Increases the risk but significantly less (at least for current values of "large scale") than large scale baiting.



Michihunter said:


> Large scale oak stands? Large scale orchards? Large scale ag lands? Large scale bedding areas? All of which carry a large scale "permanence" and "longevity of availability" with their title as opposed to the temporary nature of a baitpile? C'mon Pescy, you're grasping here.


They ALL carry increased disease risk - they just aren't addressable or carry too high a benefit to cost ratio. 

...and while a baitpile is temporary, it is also a MUCH higher concentration.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> The potential incidence of CWD was the genesis of the current peninsula wide baiting ban, not TB, not blue tongue, not Lyme disease.....CWD. That is the justification that the DNR used for banning bait.


Yes, but irrelevant.

The bait ban lowers the risk of disease transmission. End of story.

Diseases are here.




Munsterlndr said:


> So you think it's delusional to think that no other deer in Michigan, either captive or free ranging are infected with CWD? Please provide an iota (or for that matter even a scintilla ) of evidence to support that claim. :SHOCKED:


Absolutely.

There is no evidence but probability. Given where it's been found outside the state, the fact that it has been found inside the state, etc, etc, etc. makes the odds highly skewed in favor of there being more deer, currently in the state of Michigan, infected with CWD.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Easily regulated and with little cost to Michigan's economy and citizenry? :lol:
> 
> I want some of what you're smoking!
> 
> Next to speed limits, the baiting ban is probably one of the least enforcible and most ignored public policies around. That pretty much rules out easily regulated.


Relative to banning agriculture, gardens, and fruit trees - it's pretty easily regulated.

You asked about the difference between the two.




Munsterlndr said:


> If it was enforcible and hunters were not still buying bait, a dept. of ag. commodities specialist estimated that the ban could have a primary impact of a $50 million dollar loss to the states economy and that does not take into account the secondary impact, due to loss of incidental commerce, that could easily run into the hundreds of millions. Only a democrat would see that kind of negative economic impact as "little cost". :lol:



It's less than .025% of the Michigan Economy... and that is assuming no other markets and complete loss.



Munsterlndr said:


> Btw, we were primarily talking about risk mitigation and the potential for the spread of disease. Maybe you can tell me what the substantive difference between the two photos is in that regard?


One you can stop, the other you cannot.

The one you can stop, is a less than realistic depiction of what was actually happening in the woods on by and large. The one you can't is pretty much reality.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

pescadero said:


> Increases the risk but significantly less (at least for current values of "large scale") than large scale baiting.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In what way is bait a higher concentration? How many gallons of brassica can you fit in a 100sq ft of foodplot? By law you can only fit two if you use it as bait and once again, as you plainly stated, it's temporary as opposed to the time span a foodplot is active. 

As for being addressable, I believe I showed that it is indeed EASILY addressable by removing a single word from the regulation. Intent would be extremely easy to prove.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Michihunter said:


> In what way is bait a higher concentration? How many gallons of brassica can you fit in a 100sq ft of foodplot? By law you can only fit two if you use it as bait and once again, as you plainly stated, it's temporary as opposed to the time span a foodplot is active.


By law...

By experience I'd say the percentage of bait sites that didn't violate the law was <10%.



Michihunter said:


> As for being addressable, I believe I showed that it is indeed EASILY addressable by removing a single word from the regulation. Intent would be extremely easy to prove.


I think you'd find it harder than you imagine.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

Within two years we will be able to legally bait deer again in Michigan...guaranteed! 

This is going to happen wether you like it or not. 

Earmark this post ... and reference it if your ever wondering if I have a clue. It's gonna' happen


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

pescadero said:


> By law...
> 
> By experience I'd say the percentage of bait sites that didn't violate the law was <10%.
> 
> ...


Then both statements you just made rely on legality and as such are irrelevant. Law breakers are not what laws should be based upon.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> Yes, but irrelevant.
> 
> The bait ban lowers the risk of disease transmission. End of story.
> 
> ...


Not irrelevant at all, totally relevant. CWD was the basis for the baiting ban, absent the potential for CWD, the basis for the ban is gone. Baiting is still legal in the UP because the parameters set previously regarding CWD have not been met. If any other disease other then CWD was the trigger for the ban, then the UP would not have been exempted. Your conclusion is just simply wrong, if CWD is not present then whether or not there is a ban is immaterial, because no amount of bait in the world can transmit a disease that is not present in the population. 

Ok, so you have no evidence to support your claim. I kind of thought so. On the other hand, there has been extensive testing which has established that the current likelihood of another CWD deer being present in Michigan as being extremely low. Hmmm...which one should we believe.....unsupported speculation or a premise based on actual scientific data. Kind of a no brainer for anyone who is not delusional.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

FERG 06 said:


> Good luck. I haven't gotten an answer yet to my question posted many pages ago. What is a "Hobby Hunter"?


It is too easy a question. Unless you make your living from hunting, you are probably a hobby hunter.

It is very comparable to golf. Very few people are professional golfers, they teach in pro shops or are on a tour, they represent a tiny fraction of 1% of all golfers.

If you only spend 100 days or so a year studying, scouting, doing habitat work, and hunting, you are a hobbyist beyond a doubt. If you don't make money at it you are probably a hobbyist.

That is the funny thing about hunting. Guys who spend only a few days or weeks a year doing it think they are experts. There isn't the clear measure of a score like golfers have. Most golfers know they don't know what they are doing, and if they hit a good shot it is lucky. Most hunters think they do know what they are doing, and if they get a good deer it is skill not luck:lol:.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Honestly Munster;

It is a waste of time to talk to someone who shows pictures of deer spread out over thousands of square feet and says it is similar to a 10 X 10 bait pile.

I have come to the conclusion that you are delusional and it is not worth the effort to discuss it with you.

Same with Michihunter, his picture shows deer congregated in a "small" area of several thousand square feet. And he too delusionally uses the picture to say that the fields are the "same as" a bait pile.

It is impossible to have a rational conversation with you guys. 

Apple trees.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Honestly Munster;
> 
> It is a waste of time to talk to someone who shows pictures of deer spread out over thousands of square feet and says it is similar to a 10 X 10 bait pile.
> 
> ...


Ok, let's recap the last few pages.

Bioactive says that the apples don't stay on his trees through hunting season so therefore the comparison of apple trees in a food plot to using apples for bait is illegitimate. Pictures of apple trees still bearing fruit well through hunting season contradict Bio's opinion. Score for Bio = 0

Bioactive continues to claim that all bait piles are spread out over 100 sq. ft. Product information from Moultrie disproves this claim and shows that typical broadcast bait can cover 1,250 sq. ft. Score for Bio = 0

Bioactive claims that food plots pose less of a risk then bait because of their much greater size. Previous quotes from Bioactive indicate that one of his food plots is approx. 300 sq. ft., a quarter of the size of broadcast baits sites. Score for Bio = 0

Bioactive asserts that he has never seen deer eating from stored hay bales in Michigan, implying that this practice must only happen out west or in non-ag areas. Expert testimony from a previous thread indicates that deer love second cutting alfalfa in stored bales and that it was not uncommon to see multiple deer at a bale. Score for Bio = 0

Now you assert that I'm delusional because I show pictures of deer clustered in small groups and surmise that such groupings can facilitate the transmission of disease.

Bio, old buddy, why don't you quit while you're ahead. If we were in a court room and you were trying to base a case on the list of unsupported and obviously wrong assertions that you have made so far, a jury would laugh you out of the courtroom.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Rational is looking at a picture and understanding that deer congregate regardless of whether it's a bait pile or food plot. 
Rational is understanding that the concentration levels of a food plot EXCEED the concentration of a baitpile.
Rational is understanding that if one has a transmission risk both do and that neither has a black and white increase/decrease in the amount of risk.
Rational is understanding that IF disease is present NOTHING will decrease that risk in areas of high deer populations/densities.
Rational is understanding that if NO disease is present the exclusion of one is meaningless.

Now what rationale do you have to rebut these statements?


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Michihunter said:


> Then both statements you just made rely on legality and as such are irrelevant. Law breakers are not what laws should be based upon.


No, but reality should be considered.


...and the reality is, that large scale violations of quantity limits were commonplace.

The bait ban, on the other hand, has drastically decreased the number of bait piles I've seen in the woods.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Not irrelevant at all, totally relevant. CWD was the basis for the baiting ban, absent the potential for CWD, the basis for the ban is gone. Baiting is still legal in the UP because the parameters set previously regarding CWD have not been met. If any other disease other then CWD was the trigger for the ban, then the UP would not have been exempted. Your conclusion is just simply wrong, if CWD is not present then whether or not there is a ban is immaterial, because no amount of bait in the world can transmit a disease that is not present in the population.


CWD was the basis for the ban.

The ban helps prevent diseases other than CWD from spreading.

The ban is good from a disease transmission standpoint, regardless of whether CWD is present or not.





Munsterlndr said:


> Ok, so you have no evidence to support your claim. I kind of thought so. On the other hand, there has been extensive testing which has established that the current likelihood of another CWD deer being present in Michigan as being extremely low.


No, there hasn't.

There has been absolutely nothing like "extensive testing".

There has been a rather small sampling.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

pescadero said:


> No, but reality should be considered.
> 
> 
> ...and the reality is, that large scale violations of quantity limits were commonplace.
> ...


So in in one statement you say people are abiding yet in another they aren't? With nothing but the limited exposure you have as the basis for your opinion? Sounds like speed limit laws to me. Perhaps we should ban those as well because of the non compliance rate?:16suspect


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> CWD was the basis for the ban.
> 
> The ban helps prevent diseases other than CWD from spreading.
> 
> The ban is good from a disease transmission standpoint, regardless of whether CWD is present or not.


Hogwash. The ban was enacted to combat a specific disease, not a general prophylactic measure. It's ridiculous to say that it should be continued if there is ample evidence, which there is, that CWD is not present in the free ranging herd. Disease is a natural part of life. The only reason that CWD warrants preventative measures is the potential long term impact that it may have on the herd (and even that has been over blown) and because of a hysterical over-reaction due to it's similarity to mad cow disease. Blue tongue, TB, EHD, etc. are not going to wipe out the deer herd in any way shape or form. 



pescadero said:


> No, there hasn't.
> 
> There has been absolutely nothing like "extensive testing".
> 
> There has been a rather small sampling.


There has been a substantial amount of testing, more then enough to establish with a high level of certainty, that CWD is not in the free ranging herd. Combine that with the anecdotal evidence that people are not seeing deer stumbling around, drooling and emaciated and it's a very reasonable assumption that CWD is not present. Valid statistical predictions are made every day based on much smaller sample groups then what has been tested in Michigan in the last two years. 

Are you even aware of how many deer have been tested? Maybe you can share it with us, so we can judge the accuracy of your "rather small sampling" statement.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> No, but reality should be considered.
> 
> 
> ...and the reality is, that large scale violations of quantity limits were commonplace.


Again with the purely speculative, totally unsupported by any sort of evidence, statements. 

500,000 or so hunters in Michigan used to bait prior to the ban. You may have personally run across how many of those in your trips afield...say 15 or 20?  Amazing that you can form such a sweeping, all-encompassing generalization based on such a limited exposure to people actually baiting. Reality, ....yeah, that's a good one! :lol:


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

REALITY....:lol::lol: yeah that is good one.. I have no idea where this thread is but reality with munster and michi is like saying a crossbow is much harder to shoot than a vertical bow...Oh wait that is reality...:lol::lol:<-----please note the use of:lol:  its actually harder to hunt with bait so I dont see the issue


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Michihunter said:


> So in in one statement you say people are abiding yet in another they aren't?



Yep.

Lots of people speed 5 mph, but not a lot speed by 40 mph.

Lots of people violated amount and spread restrictions, but not a lot (relatively) seem to be violating the ban.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

sbooy42 said:


> is like saying a crossbow is much harder to shoot than a vertical bow...Oh wait that is reality...:lol::lol:


Speaking of reality, before you make too many judgements about which is easier or more effective, you might want to study up on the battle of Crecy and learn how the English longbows stacked up against the Italian crossbow.  :yikes:


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

pescadero said:


> Yep.
> 
> Lots of people speed 5 mph, but not a lot speed by 40 mph.
> 
> Lots of people violated amount and spread restrictions, but not a lot (relatively) seem to be violating the ban.


Interesting concept. Perhaps we can do a simple test and look to see which violation was cited more by the DNR- A violation of the size and legal limit of bait piles for the two years prior to the ban? Or violating the baiting ban since its been in effect. Which do you suppose will win out?:16suspect Without doing a search I'm fairly confident in what that answer will be.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Hogwash. The ban was enacted to combat a specific disease, not a general prophylactic measure. It's ridiculous to say that it should be continued if there is ample evidence, which there is, that CWD is not present in the free ranging herd.


It should be continued, even absent the existence of CWD. It should have been banned for disease reasons before CWD was even a consideration.



Munsterlndr said:


> Disease is a natural part of life.


...but baiting isn't.



Munsterlndr said:


> The only reason that CWD warrants preventative measures is the potential long term impact that it may have on the herd (and even that has been over blown) and because of a hysterical over-reaction due to it's similarity to mad cow disease. Blue tongue, TB, EHD, etc. are not going to wipe out the deer herd in any way shape or form.


I don't care. Something need not be of the magnitude to wipe out the herd to make doing things to minimize spread.

Banning baiting in the TB area was right, as was massive herd reduction.

Banning baiting in the rest of the state, and massive herd reduction for about 2/3 of the LP is also right.






Munsterlndr said:


> There has been a substantial amount of testing, more then enough to establish with a high level of certainty, that CWD is not in the free ranging herd. Combine that with the anecdotal evidence that people are not seeing deer stumbling around, drooling and emaciated and it's a very reasonable assumption that CWD is not present. Valid statistical predictions are made every day based on much smaller sample groups then what has been tested in Michigan in the last two years.
> 
> Are you even aware of how many deer have been tested? Maybe you can share it with us, so we can judge the accuracy of your "rather small sampling" statement.


About 10,000 or so over the last couple years. Or somewhere significantly less than 1% of the population over that time span.

Oh... and lets not move the goalposts - I didn't restrict my positive likelihood to the free ranging herd.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Again with the purely speculative, totally unsupported by any sort of evidence, statements.
> 
> 500,000 or so hunters in Michigan used to bait prior to the ban. You may have personally run across how many of those in your trips afield...say 15 or 20? Amazing that you can form such a sweeping, all-encompassing generalization based on such a limited exposure to people actually baiting. Reality, ....yeah, that's a good one! :lol:


Heh... I probably personally knew 15-20 people who baited.

Never mind the hundreds of bait piles I've seen while covering a good number of square miles of state land.

Plus, you know - I talk to a number of other state land hunters.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Michihunter said:


> Interesting concept. Perhaps we can do a simple test and look to see which violation was cited more by the DNR- A violation of the size and legal limit of bait piles for the two years prior to the ban? Or violating the baiting ban since its been in effect. Which do you suppose will win out?:16suspect Without doing a search I'm fairly confident in what that answer will be.


Yes, because we all know violation rates directly correlate to citation rates... and enforcement pressure has no effect.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

pescadero said:


> Yes, because we all know violation rates directly correlate to citation rates... and enforcement pressure has no effect.


Are you implying a CO didn't do his job for one particular violation that you stated was more rampant? And yet did in the other scenario that you stated was less rampant? :16suspect Pretty presumptuous(and insulting) don't you think?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> It should be continued, even absent the existence of CWD. It should have been banned for disease reasons before CWD was even a consideration.
> 
> ...but baiting isn't.
> 
> ...


Balderdash. If you are going to suggest banning baiting for disease prevention purposes, when there is no evidence that CWD is present or that any other communicable diseases pose any major threat to Cervids in Michigan, then you better also be suggesting that any other potential disease vectors are mitigated as well. Otherwise singling out bait certainly appears arbitrary and unsupportable from a scientific standpoint.

As far as your guess, your only off by about 50%, there have been just under 15,000 deer tested with none of them showing positive results. In the nine township "hot zone", approx. 5% of the total deer population has been tested with no CWD positives. That is a large enough sample size to draw some very statistically valid conclusions from the results.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> Heh... I probably personally knew 15-20 people who baited.
> 
> Never mind the hundreds of bait piles I've seen while covering a good number of square miles of state land.
> 
> Plus, you know - I talk to a number of other state land hunters.


500,000 or so baiter's, most of who hunted on private land and you are willing to make generalizations based on 120 or so observations and some anecdotal scuttlebutt with other hunters? :lol::lol::lol:

Please.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

We can all be thankful that baiting is now illegal. It offers one more speed-bump to the transmission of disease....be it CWD, or more worrisome to those of us whose economy is linked to dairy production....TB.

Plus, not unbeneficially, it offers a speed-bump to the seemingly endemic scofflaw behavior associated with baiting....at least as it has been practiced in Michigan. 

I think we all can understand the motives underlying the deer-baiters lament that "_it just ain't fair_"....
How can it be fair? if deer are gonna nuzzle anyway? or that oaks are gonna drop nuts anyway? apple trees apples? or that some _hunters_ are going to plant a field with clover that deer may eat? 

Or, most unfairly, some growers/distributors/retailers are gonna lose some money while they re-direct their efforts to others markets. 

Most unfair.

But, the health of our deer herd transcends all of their concerns. Sure, it may be more challenging to kill a deer without resorting to bait. And sure a few folks will lose some money short term. But..........and it is a very big but........the long term viability of our free range herd is more important than their small concerns. 

Trained and educated professional scientists arrived at a decision to recommend the elimination of one tactic used by hunting hobbyists. They recommended it to the voter-authorized body of citizens designated as the gatekeepers on such issues. That legitimate body chose to enact a ban under the auspices of doing what is right for the resource.

The system worked. Is working. 

But, as one can always expect, vested interests and excitable partisans howl & whine about the unfairness of it all.

And that's OK. That's our way. Nothing too harmful in allowing their verbal-enemas to be vented. But we must recognize those polemics as just 'background noise' to the real issue, the critical issue, of protecting our natural resources. 

.................

The real _'disease danger' _for Michigan's economy vis-a-vis deer is..... bovine TB. With hundreds of thousands of dairy cattle within the state and many millions of dollars at stake (far far larger than the bait-economy) TB is what can force the drastic reduction in our deer herds.

Whatever reasonable controls the state CAN implement to control free range deer from vectoring TB into our dairy investment.....well, it must be implemented.

If it took the discovery of fearsome CWD in just one deer (so far) to strengthen the protections for our dairy industry....well, so be it. Deer-baiters' histrionics cannot be allowed to endanger either our dairy economy....or the natural resource of free-range wild deer. 

Those who insist on continuing baiting in the face of the new laws....are law-breakers, poachers. Their activities fly in the face of those hunters who do follow our game laws. And, they endanger what goodwill legitimate hunters may have earned with the 90% of Michigan's population that does not hunt. Poaching deer via the use of illegal baiting threatens not only the herd itself but the activity of legitimate hunting itself.

That is a serious threat to Michigan's hunters.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

All I can do is stand back and applaud such a pleonastic display of impartiality.:lol::lol:


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

Fairfax, you have your facts backwards. Cattle raisers brought bovine TB to the deer herd long ago. The dnr just began to acknowledge it when they looked for it. It was the cattle that endangered the deer and that is a fact.
That is why they call it bovine TB. The deer victim numbers went up because a few clubs in 452 decided that they wanted to create their own deer herds on their property by stockpiling semi loads of feed. That is not baiting. It is an attempt to feed lot deer on your own property to create your own private herd. TB will never be eliminated from the wild herd thanks to unregistered cattle that were brought into the area.

If there is no cwd in the wild herd, how does baiting affect cwd disease one way or another. It does not. Baiting does not generate disease spontaneously. Deer behavior around bait piles as in most other places that they dwell may spread disease but the bait piles are neutral in that the disease is either a part of the herd or it is not. Once there removing bait piles will not remove the disease. This has been covered repeatedly.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> But, the health of our deer herd transcends all of their concerns. Sure, it may be more challenging to kill a deer without resorting to bait. And sure a few folks will lose some money short term. But..........and it is a very big but........the long term viability of our free range herd is more important than their small concerns.


Unless you want to admit to being hopelessly hypocritical, you should apply the above paragraph equally to the practice of food plotting. It's a purely voluntary practice, that adds nothing to the health or well being of the resource and who's primary function is to make it less challanging to kill a deer. If you honestly believe that baiting poses a legitimate threat to the resource in terms of the transmission of disease, then logically you must also condemn food plotting with an equal amount of fervor and zeal. 

TB does not threaten our deer herd in the least. What it threatens is the profits of the dairy & beef industry. Let's make it abundantly clear that it's about money and not about some feigned concern about the "resource". The beef and diary industry is perfectly capable of protecting themselves from TB, they just don't want to commit the effort and resources to do so. They are the ones who brought TB to Michigan in the first place. They are perfectly capable of double fencing their property to prevent incidental contact between cervids and cattle. Christmas tree farmers do it, to protect their economic investment, are we to assume that cattle and dairy farmers are incapable of taking similar steps to protect their investment? Of course, as you say above, a few folks would lose some money in the short term but apparently you feel that's an acceptable trade off to protect the resource. Surely then it's also an acceptable trade off to protect such a vital industry?

As far as your hysteria over the "rampant scofflawism" created by the baiting ban, there is a very simple solution to that. Overturn an un-needed regulation that does nothing to actually protect the resource and has needlessly created a regulatory nightmare. End of problem. No more scofflawism resulting from this practice. Simply hundreds of thousands of regular Joe's who are employing a legitimate tactic, which has been used by millions upon millions of hunters for over 50 years and whose primary goal is just to put some venison in the freezer. Simple solution. 

Of course then we would still have to listen to your teeth gnashing and hand wringing over the ethical implications of harvesting deer over bait. Maybe you can contemplate the hypocrisy of that point of view the next time you are hunting next to a corn or bean field. :lol:


----------



## standsetter (Dec 2, 2007)

This thread was stupid to begin with and has now progressed to R-word'ed.


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Speaking of reality, before you make too many judgements about which is easier or more effective, you might want to study up on the battle of Crecy and learn how the English longbows stacked up against the Italian crossbow.  :yikes:


Yeah I'll get right on that becuase I'm sure it has a lot to do with MI hunting in 2010....


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

standsetter said:


> This thread was stupid to begin with and has now progressed to R-word'ed.


 :lol:


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

standsetter said:


> This thread was stupid to begin with and has now progressed to R-word'ed.


Only to those with a closed mind.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Michihunter said:


> Are you implying a CO didn't do his job for one particular violation that you stated was more rampant?


Certainly. Just like police don't do their job in catching 5mph speeders. Not necessarily ignored, but far from an enforcement priority.



Michihunter said:


> And yet did in the other scenario that you stated was less rampant? :16suspect Pretty presumptuous(and insulting) don't you think?


No, just realistic given staffing levels.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

sbooy42 said:


> Yeah I'll get right on that becuase I'm sure it has a lot to do with MI hunting in 2010....


About as much as crossbows and longbows have to do with this thread. :lol:


----------



## sbooy42 (Mar 6, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> About as much as crossbows and longbows have to do with this thread. :lol:


 Oh boy ya got me there on page 27 of a pointless thread that you contributed a lot to..


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Balderdash. If you are going to suggest banning baiting for disease prevention purposes, when there is no evidence that CWD is present or that any other communicable diseases pose any major threat to Cervids in Michigan, then you better also be suggesting that any other potential disease vectors are mitigated as well.


I suggest we mitigate disease vectors in direct proportion to their effectiveness and ease of implementation while considering the cost-benefit ratio.



Munsterlndr said:


> Otherwise singling out bait certainly appears arbitrary and unsupportable from a scientific standpoint.


I'm far from singling out baiting - I've been hot on the case of the number one disease vector for years (and so has the DNR)... overpopulation.




Munsterlndr said:


> As far as your guess, your only off by about 50%, there have been just under 15,000 deer tested with none of them showing positive results. In the nine township "hot zone", approx. 5% of the total deer population has been tested with no CWD positives. That is a large enough sample size to draw some very statistically valid conclusions from the results.


I see 1132 for 2009 (http://www.michigan.gov/emergingdiseases/0,1607,7-186-25806_26404-213853--,00.html), and 9341 for 2008 (http://www.michigan.gov/emergingdiseases/0,1607,7-186-25806_26404-202922--,00.html) - looks more like 10k to me.

So well less than 1% of the free range herd in the state, and who knows what percentage of the captive herd. Never mind that at this moment deer are being illegally transported in and out of the state... both live and dead... 

...but you're certain there isn't a single CWD positive deer in the state.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> TB does not threaten our deer herd in the least. What it threatens is the profits of the dairy & beef industry. Let's make it abundantly clear that it's about money and not about some feigned concern about the "resource".


Sure it's about the resource - the ag resource. 

...and guess what? It's way more important and valuable than the deer herd. If it comes down to one or the other, deer will be exterminated without a thought.

It's a legitimate threat, and one we as hunters have a duty to do our best to limit.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> I see 1132 for 2009 (http://www.michigan.gov/emergingdiseases/0,1607,7-186-25806_26404-213853--,00.html), and 9341 for 2008 (http://www.michigan.gov/emergingdiseases/0,1607,7-186-25806_26404-202922--,00.html) - looks more like 10k to me.
> 
> So well less than 1% of the free range herd in the state, and who knows what percentage of the captive herd. Never mind that at this moment deer are being illegally transported in and out of the state... both live and dead...
> 
> ...but you're certain there isn't a single CWD positive deer in the state.


You forgot to add in the 3,800 or so captive cervids that have also been tested, remember, you did not want to move the goal posts and limit the discussion to just free ranging deer. 

And again, in the area where CWD is most likely the percentage of the herd tested approaches 5%. 

I didn't say I was certain that there is not a single CWD positive deer, I said that given the degree of testing, that there is a very high likelihood that there are no CWD deer present. You will never be able to reach a 100% level of assuredness, it's a fools game to contemplate that but you can certainly reach an acceptable level of assurance and every indication that we have says that we have reached that point.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

pescadero said:


> Sure it's about the resource - the ag resource.
> 
> ...and guess what? It's way more important and valuable than the deer herd. If it comes down to one or the other, deer will be exterminated without a thought.
> 
> It's a legitimate threat, and one we as hunters have a duty to do our best to limit.


Why should the onus of protecting the beef and dairy industry be on the shoulders of hunters? If it's such an important and valuable economic component, then don't you think that the industry itself should be safeguarding their economic investment by taking positive steps to make sure that cervid/bovine interactions do not occur? 

It's hard for me to take the concerns very seriously when I see farmers storing feed in unfenced areas which are obviously accessible to deer. Clearly, they are not taking the threat very seriously so why should I as a hunter?


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Poster Munster asserts his responsibility towards deer and our agriculture in the above post: 

_ "(farmers),..... are not taking the threat very seriously so why should I as a hunter?"_

Munster, Munster, Munster.....how have you lost your way, son?

The 'why' to your whine is this: 
You are a hobbyist frolicking in playtime. Farmers are providing food for you, me, the rest of Michigan, and likely, China too. Their econometrics dwarf your bait-business assertions. You...and all of us hunters....are wannabe Natty Bumppo's reveling in the thrill of the chase. Sport hunting is simply a game at recess.

Let's get that priority established right up front. 

(btw, what you see up in Leland concerning farming is a bit removed from here where there are dozens of dairy herds of 1,500+ animals within this county and the adjoining.)

Now, to be fair, I will defer to your insight on just how the dairy industry was impacted by the battle of Crecy.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

So what's your point, Fairfax? That "hobbyists" should have to take risk mitigation seriously while the Dairy industry should not? You have it bassackwards there Grandpa, it's precisely because of the economic importance of farming, that it should be a reasonable expectation that dairy farms should be bearing the lions share of the cost and effort of protecting their industry? Why is it unreasonable to expect that if dairy farmers are concerned about the potential of cervids introducing bovine TB to their stock, that they take appropriate measures to preclude that from happening? 

Are you serious in implying that protecting our natural resources, including our deer herd should not be a priority, simply because of the economic magnitude of industries that might threaten those resources? How Leopold-esque of you. 

So we should allow industry to pollute our waters or otherwise threaten our resources simply because there might be added expense to that industry, involved in preventing that sort of pollution from occurring? Tell me your not serious in that point of view.

The fact of the matter is that the dairy industry brought bovine TB to Michigan and their unregulated practices allowed it to be transmitted to the free ranging deer herd in Michigan. Other industries, including some types of agricultural operations, regularly fence off large areas of land for security reasons all of the time. Sometimes because it's a requirement of the government, sometimes it's done as a proactive investment for risk reduction purposes. If Dairy farmers are really concerned about the transmission of TB, it's certainly within their power to take steps to insure that the potential risk is mitigated to a very small degree. 

Again, I'll ask pose the question which you quoted, yet did not respond to. If farmers are clearly not concerned about practices which could facilitate the transmission of disease, such as storing animal feed openly where deer can access it and come into contact with their stock, why should I as a hunter be concerned about the potential risk of disease transmission resulting from using bait or planting food plots?

You seem to expect hunters to make sacrifices while not holding farmers to a similar standard, simply because they happen to be part of the farming fraternity. Double standard, thy name is Fairfax.


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

Maybe some of you guys should get off the computer, Head out and do some scouting. Then you might get a deer next year & This completely pointless conversation might not take place next year. Baiting was banned how many years ago? GET OVER IT


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

The poster above too-frequently is tempted to create _'straw-man' _arguments where opponents positions are mischaracterized, over-simplified, or even fabricated.....then he attempts to knock them down with absurdist reasoning.

So be it. It's a kind of performance art.

Concerning his overwrought assertions about farmers motives and failures ...well, perhaps, he has little experience in the farm economy. And so be that, too. We are a product of our upbringing. 

The fact of the matter is ...vis-a-vis the dairy industry as it is practiced in the counties near me....TB is a major concern. Simply and plainly because the diagnosis of TB in any single animal in one of these large herds would trigger a monumental expense in just the testing alone. Not to mention quarantining and other restrictions on animals and milk. And then the nightmare that the single incident proves to be the entry-point for a far wider outbreak.

The poster is misguided, or more likely is simply unaware, of the huge investment that operators already make to control disease issues. However, to isolate incidences of exposed hay as proof positive of poor practice and lack of care is, well, silly. Chalk it up to an excess of zeal for deer-baiting and niavete' about farming.

But, if we compare the 'investment' by the operator, his family, his employees, the landowners who lease him cropland, and myriad other vendors.....vs. the deer-baiters insistence that he will continue to bait wild deer because the laws are wrong........THAT is the absurdist element in the bait debate.

Again, let me repeat, what we hunters do is a game-at-recess. We are playing. Farmers are producing. Society knows very well how to prioritize the relative importance of each. 

Any reasonable control the State can enact to reduce risk of TB to our dairy herds must be done. That most certainly includes monitoring and regulating the free-range deer situation AND the activities by those that hunt those deer. If deer are the vector for transmitting TB to our dairy herds then the deer must go.

To think otherwise...to behave otherwise.....is irresponsible.

However, it need not get to that point.....IF hunters themselves will be more responsible. First, by being more proactive in keeping the deer herd from achieving population levels too high or too dense----which means an increased effort towards harvesting females; and then secondly, to eschew practices, such as baiting, that are clearly 'risk-enhancers'. 

And baiting need not be the only behavior restricted. Irresponsible food-plotting ---ala' tuber foods ---could also fall under enhanced controls.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> You forgot to add in the 3,800 or so captive cervids that have also been tested, remember, you did not want to move the goal posts and limit the discussion to just free ranging deer.
> 
> And again, in the area where CWD is most likely the percentage of the herd tested approaches 5%.
> 
> I didn't say I was certain that there is not a single CWD positive deer, I said that given the degree of testing, that there is a very high likelihood that there are no CWD deer present. You will never be able to reach a 100% level of assuredness, it's a fools game to contemplate that but you can certainly reach an acceptable level of assurance and every indication that we have says that we have reached that point.


I disagree - given the number of deer in the state and the transport of both live and dead animals into the state.


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> Why should the onus of protecting the beef and dairy industry be on the shoulders of hunters? If it's such an important and valuable economic component, then don't you think that the industry itself should be safeguarding their economic investment by taking positive steps to make sure that cervid/bovine interactions do not occur?


"Should be" doesn't matter.

What WILL happen is what matters.

...and if the deer herd becomes a threat to the livelihood of the cattle industry, it loses.



Munsterlndr said:


> It's hard for me to take the concerns very seriously when I see farmers storing feed in unfenced areas which are obviously accessible to deer. Clearly, they are not taking the threat very seriously so why should I as a hunter?


Because when push comes to shove, they'll win and we'll lose...


----------



## pescadero (Mar 31, 2006)

Munsterlndr said:


> So what's your point, Fairfax? That "hobbyists" should have to take risk mitigation seriously while the Dairy industry should not?


Nope.

Hobbyist shouldn't have to.

The economic reality says - hobbyists better take it seriously, even though the Dairy industry doesn't, or the hobbyists will cease to have a hobby.


----------



## Ieatantlers (Oct 7, 2008)

TwodogsNate said:


> Maybe some of you guys should get off the computer, Head out and do some scouting. Then you might get a deer next year & This completely pointless conversation might not take place next year. Baiting was banned how many years ago? GET OVER IT


I said that 13 pages ago, and they still waste time and bandwidth. HEY GUYS, YOU AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE EACH OTHER'S MINDS. YOU MIGHT AS WELL GO AND SLAM YOUR HEAD AGAINST A BRICK WALL REPEATEDLY.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> The fact of the matter is ...vis-a-vis the dairy industry as it is practiced in the counties near me....TB is a major concern. Simply and plainly because the diagnosis of TB in any single animal in one of these large herds would trigger a monumental expense in just the testing alone. Not to mention quarantining and other restrictions on animals and milk. And then the nightmare that the single incident proves to be the entry-point for a far wider outbreak.
> 
> The poster is misguided, or more likely is simply unaware, of the huge investment that operators already make to control disease issues. However, to isolate incidences of exposed hay as proof positive of poor practice and lack of care is, well, silly. Chalk it up to an excess of zeal for deer-baiting and niavete' about farming.
> 
> But, if we compare the 'investment' by the operator, his family, his employees, the landowners who lease him cropland, and myriad other vendors.....vs. the deer-baiters insistence that he will continue to bait wild deer because the laws are wrong........THAT is the absurdist element in the bait debate.


If your done ranting, just a few points of clarification. Are you really suggesting that instances where farmers store hay bales where they are accessible to deer are isolated instances? Truly? You're saying that the vast majority of farmers store their hay inside or fence off where it's stored to prevent deer from accessing it? Wow, who'd a thunk it. 

Secondly, since you're so intimately familiar with the costs involved, in your estimation, would the costs involved in putting up and maintaining a deer fence, you know, like the kind that deer farmers, christmas tree farmers and a number of other business's put up, be greater or smaller then the "monumental expense" that would result from a TB positive cow? Since the consequences that you describe are so dire, it seems like fencing to prevent exposure would be a prudent risk reduction effort, which would also likely be to some extent tax deductible. 

Thirdly, since you continue to accuse me of mis-characterization, let me turn the mirror around for just second. I've repeatedly stated that I'm not in favor of baiting anywhere that disease is known to be present and I've also repeatedly stated that I don't encourage anyone to bait where it is illegal. despite those statements, as some sort of lame attempt to bolster your argument, you continue to portray anyone who supports baiting as an advocate of breaking the law and as someone who cares not at all about reducing the potential spread of disease. Your continued attempts to paint with that broad a brush are both tiring and lame.


----------



## FERG 06 (Oct 6, 2006)

bioactive said:


> It is too easy a question. Unless you make your living from hunting, you are probably a hobby hunter.
> 
> It is very comparable to golf. Very few people are professional golfers, they teach in pro shops or are on a tour, they represent a tiny fraction of 1% of all golfers.
> 
> ...


OK, we've established that Hobby Hunters are anyone who doesn't get paid or make money at hunting.
I thought for sure some posters were using the term incorrectly to belittle those who don't have alot of time to hunt vs. those who do. 



fairfax1 said:


> ..... hobbyist frolicking in playtime...... You...and all of us hunters....are wannabe Natty Bumppo's Let's get that priority established right up front.


See what I'm talking about. Is it really necessary?
I can enjoy a good debate but when it turns into just a name calling event, well I think it's over.



fairfax1 said:


> I think we all can understand the motives underlying the deer-baiters lament that "_it just ain't fair_"....


I think there's been just as much "whining" here and elsewhere from the other side.......it's not fair, they're messing up my woods w/there bait piles.....it's not right that I spent so much time scouting, etc. and he can just come along and put down bait and draw "my" deer to his property.....you'd do better at hunting if you'd get out and scout more, etc. (I'm sorry but not everyone is capable, physically, of scouting. I guess they should just give up hunting.) 

I'm not saying anything for or against in this statement, just that from what I've seen and heard the whining goes on on both sides.

Well I had enough. Gotta go make some money. Not sure I'm a professional or a hobbyist at what I do since I'm not working alot and I'm not making much money either. :lol:


----------

