# Let's ban baiting state wide (cwd)



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Less than a mile makes little difference in this setting.

.


----------



## TVCJohn (Nov 30, 2005)

johnhunter247 said:


> I read it was less than a mile from the first one and they were testing to see if they were related.


Just curious where it was in relation to the other. Wondering if it was on a river/creek/bottom land system.


----------



## billmitch (Dec 21, 2009)

My opinion matters little but baiting should be banned. I know you can't outlaw crops but plotting should be discouraged. APRs should be eliminated, and liberal antler less permits should be the norm. I would rather hunt a smaller herd then a herd that was heavily diseased.


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

billmitch said:


> My opinion matters little but baiting should be banned. I know you can't outlaw crops but plotting should be discouraged. APRs should be eliminated, and liberal antler less permits should be the norm. I would rather hunt a smaller herd then a herd that was heavily diseased.






billmitch said:


> My opinion matters little but baiting should be banned. I know you can't outlaw crops but plotting should be discouraged. APRs should be eliminated, and liberal antler less permits should be the norm. I would rather hunt a smaller herd then a herd that was heavily diseased.


The state of Michigan could ban all they want and it would make little if any difference when it comes to deer hunting. There is more cheating and violation during deer season than any other hunting season in the state. If you do not believe that, then take a hike through the TB zone during deer season and you will find a plethora of bait piles placed illegally. I find at least a dozen or more on public land . I report every one that I see. There is not enough enforcement to keep these violators in check up there. So if CWD becomes a statewide problem, a baiting ban would likely not deter those who are going to shoot their deer by whatever means, even if that means stealing from the rest of us. When all is said and done, that is exactly what illegal baiting has become. It is truly a shame to see how deer hunting season has turned into a competition between hunters. Greed is a much worse problem than the disease itself.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

cakebaker said:


> Ban all state land and unban bucksnbows and buckraham Lincoln.


It is pretty dull around here.
Not even the graph masters are posting for pretty pictures to look at.


----------



## Eye-CHROMERumba (Jul 19, 2015)

I love how baiting is wrong in some people eyes but a food plot isn't considered a risky practice. What a joke. Deer are herd animals. Diseases will spread regardless if baiting is banned or not.


----------



## OSXer (Jul 12, 2005)

State-wide baiting ban? Sounds great! The sounds of nature were much nicer back when it wasn't allowed. Since baiting has returned, so has the sound of feeders and dawn and dusk, coupled with 4-wheeler bait-check runs during the day.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

We should stop talking about this topic. All we have to do is go back a few years during the first CWD incident and a state-wide ban on baiting was imposed. The regulation was flagrantly ignored by tens of thousands of people--just as any new baiting regulation would be, irrespective of its biological consequences. 

CWD will not stop baiting. If you wanted to stop baiting, you would have to do it for the same reason other states have done it, specifically: the powers that be have predetermine it violates the spirit of fair chase. PERIOD. 

Banning baiting because of CWD is a response. Banning baiting due to issues surrounding fair chase, is policy.


----------



## Radar420 (Oct 7, 2004)

OSXer said:


> State-wide baiting ban? Sounds great! The sounds of nature were much nicer back when it wasn't allowed. Since baiting has returned, so has the sound of feeders and dawn and dusk, coupled with 4-wheeler bait-check runs during the day.


Those actually left for you? I could set my watch by the sounds of my neighbor's feeder during the baiting ban :irked:


----------



## OSXer (Jul 12, 2005)

Radar420 said:


> Those actually left for you? I could set my watch by the sounds of my neighbor's feeder during the baiting ban :irked:


LOL, almost. There was one across the road from me apparently in use almost the entire time the ban was ongoing. Too far away for me to hear, but I happened to be walking with the property owner over there (who doesn't hunt, but gave permission to someone else to hunt the property) and gave him the heads up about the law, which he passed along and it came down ... then months later the ban was lifted so I presume it went back up.


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

I would like to see Michigan become a non baiting state like many others. That said, wouldn't limited quantity baiting in the hot zone this season allow hunters to kill a lot more deer???? At this point I'm not sure if slowing the spread of CWD or killing all the deer in that area is more important but I'm leaning toward killing all the deer.


----------



## FullQuiver (May 2, 2006)

Eye-CHROMERumba said:


> I love how baiting is wrong in some people eyes but a food plot isn't considered a risky practice. What a joke. Deer are herd animals. Diseases will spread regardless if baiting is banned or not.


Several people have said that not just baiting is not good but food plotting and other things like mineral licks too... They should all be discouraged in as many ways as legally possible... 

So in your mind the answer must be to do nothing to stop or slow the spread of this disease because deer are herd animals....


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

Riva said:


> We should stop talking about this topic. All we have to do is go back a few years during the first CWD incident and a state-wide ban on baiting was imposed. The regulation was flagrantly ignored by tens of thousands of people--just as any new baiting regulation would be, irrespective of its biological consequences.
> 
> CWD will not stop baiting. If you wanted to stop baiting, you would have to do it for the same reason other states have done it, specifically: the powers that be have predetermine it violates the spirit of fair chase. PERIOD.
> 
> Banning baiting because of CWD is a response. Banning baiting due to issues surrounding fair chase, is policy.



Best post so far! Good going, Riva. There isn't a state ban in the world that would stop baiting in Michigan.


----------



## localyahoo (May 28, 2009)

Prions for all intensive purposes are indestructible. Baiting bans will do nothing. Once it's here it will stay here. I don't necessarily believe that it came from deer urine, but possibly from other hunters/hikers boots or equipment that had traveled with them in a cwd state and were brought back and used here. It was just a matter of time! For the record I hunt with and without baits and am very successful at both. So it doesn't matter to me what laws are implemented. I will still be successful.


----------



## monczunski (Feb 28, 2006)

Eliminating bait, food plots, or anything of the such, will have no effect on spreading disease.

Deer will then just migrate too natural food sources. Ag fields, natural browse, water, etc. I dont believe there is a solution for cwd... god has a plan for all critters, so let nature run its course imo.


----------



## shamrock69 (Jun 3, 2011)

Why dont we ban all captive deer operations as well as high fence hunt clubs. It seems to me that the genetic manipulation that occurs at these places ends up having an adverse effect on the wild deer that are in close proximity. It seems that in nearly all states with a cwd problem the first cases were diagnosed in captive cervids. I think this is much more than a coincidence. Antlermania is largely to blame for this disease. We need to quit messing with mother nature!


----------



## fishx65 (Aug 24, 2005)

shamrock69 said:


> Why dont we ban all captive deer operations as well as high fence hunt clubs. It seems to me that the genetic manipulation that occurs at these places ends up having an adverse effect on the wild deer that are in close proximity. It seems that in nearly all states with a cwd problem the first cases were diagnosed in captive cervids. I think this is much more than a coincidence. Antlermania is largely to blame for this disease. We need to quit messing with mother nature!


"Antlermania is largely to blame for this disease"

So, Antlermania must have been around in 1967 when CWD was first detected??????


----------



## Scout 2 (Dec 31, 2004)

It has always been around it just wasn't pushed onto people the way it is now. I think many sit and watch all the big bucks showing in the hunting shows and think wow we can have that to but what they don't know is how many hours it took to shoot and edit that footage. Another thing how many of these shows are shot in a fence area but shown to be a wild area


----------



## shamrock69 (Jun 3, 2011)

fishx65 said:


> "Antlermania is largely to blame for this disease"
> 
> So, Antlermania must have been around in 1967 when CWD was first detected??????


First cwd case in 1967 was at a wildlife research enclosure, not a wild cervid. I hope I didnt ruffle any feathers. I am pro QDM and honestly would prefer to see an OBR. My point is that deer in enclosures seem to be the starting point for many diseases.


fishx65 said:


> "Antlermania is largely to blame for this disease"
> 
> So, Antlermania must have been around in 1967 when CWD was first detected??????


First case in 1967 was in an enclosure at a wildlife research center. I hope i didnt ruffle any feathers, I am pro QDM and actually would like to see a OBR. I do feel that captive deer may have an inferior immune system compared to a wild cervid.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Baiting doesn't spread the disease anymore than other food sources. I was up north looking at a selective cut and the growth that has happened since this weekend. I saw an area where the deer are bedding near new maple suckers coming out of the stumps. There must have been a dozen bed and all the maples were snipped off. How is this different from a bait pile?

Ganzer


----------



## Scout 2 (Dec 31, 2004)

Thats the same as I see here. I have some apple trees and before the big die off a couple years ago it was nothing to see 15 deer under some trees. When they leave some goes on mine some across the road so it is no different than a bait pile


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

MERGANZER said:


> Baiting doesn't spread the disease anymore than other food sources. I was up north looking at a selective cut and the growth that has happened since this weekend. I saw an area where the deer are bedding near new maple suckers coming out of the stumps. There must have been a dozen bed and all the maples were snipped off. How is this different from a bait pile?
> 
> Ganzer


If you have to ask that question, there will be no answer that will satisfy you.


----------



## Scott K (Aug 26, 2008)

Riva said:


> If you wanted to stop baiting, you would have to do it for the same reason other states have done it, specifically: the powers that be have predetermine it violates the spirit of fair chase. PERIOD.


Why will this make a difference? if they want to cheat the system they're going to cheat the system.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

.... careful what you ask for. If you are in favor of banning bait state wide, it would be difficult to argue against other state-wide measures (like anti-QDM strategies that could include reducing buck age structure) that would have a likely greater effect than a bait ban. 
<----<<<


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

skipper34 said:


> If you have to ask that question, there will be no answer that will satisfy you.


Well try and tell me what the difference is when 10 deer are all eating the same bush that is less than 24 inches across or if they are eating corn from a 10 by 10 foot area?

Ganzer


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

MERGANZER said:


> Well try and tell me what the difference is when 10 deer are all eating the same bush that is less than 24 inches across or if they are eating corn from a 10 by 10 foot area?
> 
> Ganzer


I won't even try to explain. You are correct that there is no difference other than the fact that mankind can do nothing about one but can do something about the other. Just one question for you, though. Would you be able to hunt successfully if you were not allowed to put artificial food in the woods to attract deer? If the answer is "yes", then there is no need to debate the topic further.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

As far as a bait ban, if that's what needed to be done OK.

What gets me is the hypocrite's calling for a ban...but completely ignoring the other risks that come from attract/hold...and big antler management.

Take a look at the QDM forum. Not even a mention of CWD in Michigan....and where's the NDA.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

skipper34 said:


> I won't even try to explain. You are correct that there is no difference other than the fact that mankind can do nothing about one but can do something about the other. Just one question for you, though. Would you be able to hunt successfully if you were not allowed to put artificial food in the woods to attract deer? If the answer is "yes", then there is no need to debate the topic further.


I very rarely use bait cause I hunt ag land for the most part. That doesn't mean that bait is more harmful that the bush that 10 deer are all feeding on. Fact is mankind places bait, mankind plants food plots and crops, mankind did a select cutting which was to grow said bush for the deer. Everything we do effects the habitat rather intentional or not.

Ganzer


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> As far as a bait ban, if that's what needed to be done OK.
> 
> What gets me is the hypocrite's calling for a ban...but completely ignoring the other risks that come from attract/hold...and big antler management.
> 
> Take a look at the QDM forum. Not even a mention of CWD in Michigan....and where's the NDA.


Honest question.....Do you actually pay attention to anything outside of your little "bubble"? SMH.


----------



## Coffee Dude (Jul 15, 2015)

Has anyone asked themselves why there aren't hundreds of skinny sickly cwd deer stumbling around everywhere ?? Its because it takes years for symptoms to show, we have been eating cwd meat for years. Deer dont live long enough in michigan. Cwd symptoms on a 6 year old doe, cwd found in qdm area in wisconsin (where deer can actually grow old), cwd found in antlermania fenced in farms where older aged deer is a must. Please take time to research wisconsin deer population and find a qdm map of the US showing which counties have the most pope n young and boone n crocket entries, wisconsin leads the US in enteries. Michigan is overreacting, that 2 year old buck would have looked good on someones wall..


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

Might as well
Legalized homosexual marriage
Seams to be the year for dumbass stupid moves
so why not


----------



## hunthunt (May 28, 2015)

I hunt over bait and always will as long as it is legal. I also have 100s of apple trees on my property. A bait pile will attract every single deer to a 10 by 10 area, natural food keeps them separated way more. All I meant when I started this thread was it cant hurt to ban baiting, I know it is not a cure all!


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

Hay hunthunt, you dont have to explain yourself. I like this thread !!! As for the 100s of apple trees, im very jealous!!


----------



## Eye-CHROMERumba (Jul 19, 2015)

FullQuiver said:


> Several people have said that not just baiting is not good but food plotting and other things like mineral licks too... They should all be discouraged in as many ways as legally possible...
> 
> So in your mind the answer must be to do nothing to stop or slow the spread of this disease because deer are herd animals....


No I say lets stop the real problem and that is these deer breeding farms and ranches. You have a enclosed area with a large population so the deer are in close proximity with one another and eventually the disease spreads out to the native population. Correct me if I'm wrong but the first deer in Michigan to have CWD was in an enclosure.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> As far as a bait ban, if that's what needed to be done OK.
> 
> What gets me is the hypocrite's calling for a ban...but completely ignoring the other risks that come from attract/hold...and big antler management.
> 
> Take a look at the QDM forum. Not even a mention of CWD in Michigan....and where's the NDA.


NDA's last poll was on deer urine spreading disease, which was mentioned by Russ Mason as a possible cause of Michigan's CWD outbreak.


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

It's here its gonna stay here and and all the bait bans plot bans Apr bans ain't gonna stop it. Unless the DNR has figured out a way to get it out of the soil. Best we can do is non selectively thin the herd and live with it. Just an opinion.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Eye-CHROMERumba said:


> No I say lets stop the real problem and that is these deer breeding farms and ranches. You have a enclosed area with a large population so the deer are in close proximity with one another and eventually the disease spreads out to the native population. Correct me if I'm wrong but the first deer in Michigan to have CWD was in an enclosure.


You are correct that Michigan first case of CWD was in an enclosure. The owners were caught by the DNR smuggling deer out after dark to release in the wild. The were charged with a felony for doing that after the quarantine.


----------



## hunthunt (May 28, 2015)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> Hay hunthunt, you dont have to explain yourself. I like this thread !!! As for the 100s of apple trees, im very jealous!!


Haha thanks, I'm jealous of u being way down south??


----------



## billmitch (Dec 21, 2009)

I think most people realize you arent going to stop it, but that shouldnt preclude us from trying things that could slow the spread, or mitigate the extent of spead. Baiting in an area of disease can spread the disease, letting young bucks walk can help to spread the disease over a larger area, not having an adequate doe harvest can lead to overpopulation and further spread. Small food plots can concentrte deer also so discourage hunters in areas of disease not to plant them. 

This thread is exactly whats wrong with Michigan deer hunting. I rarely agree with FL but he and a couple others said it and are correct, Michigan hunters will NOT do what is right to mjnimize the impact of this disease.


----------



## U of M Fan (May 8, 2005)

It makes you wonder how bad it could get in the U.P. where deer yard up heavy in the winter.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Michiganspike (Jul 10, 2009)

baiting has been banned in ne mich for a long time and it totally unenforced or ignored by a lot of hunters. my experince around tawas is that most camps/hunting properties have there own rules, from shooting everything to shooting nothing at almost any time. including if someone needs meat for the table out of season


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

U of M Fan said:


> It makes you wonder how bad it could get in the U.P. where deer yard up heavy in the winter.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


At the December UPCAC meeting there was a big discussion of scenarios after the CWD plan was passed out. The DMUs bordering Wisconsin along with migration routes were discussed. It wasn't pretty if that's where a breakout occurred.


----------



## shell waster (Nov 5, 2004)

Baiting is a personal choice, I don't hunt over bait, my wife does, too each his own, as long as it's legal do what YOU want to. I have a dumb question, remember when they found cwd a few years back (deer farm), bam Lp baiting ban for 3 years...why didn't that happen now. Different dnr plan?


----------



## FullQuiver (May 2, 2006)

billmitch said:


> This thread is exactly whats wrong with Michigan deer hunting. I rarely agree with FL but he and a couple others said it and are correct, Michigan hunters will NOT do what is right to mjnimize the impact of this disease.


My sentiments exactly... No one wants to be the one to do the right things... It is all about themselves...


----------



## FullQuiver (May 2, 2006)

billmitch said:


> This thread is exactly whats wrong with Michigan deer hunting. I rarely agree with FL but he and a couple others said it and are correct, Michigan hunters will NOT do what is right to mjnimize the impact of this disease.


My sentiments exactly... No one wants to be the one to do the right things... It is all about themselves...


----------



## LCO (Jun 26, 2015)

What's legal and what is the correct plan of action do not always coincide with each other.


----------



## retired dundo (Jul 21, 2015)

Somebody explain the differense between a bait pile and planting a small 15 by 15 food lot. Or planting a fruit tree or putting event out to a tract deer to new area.I think everybody should just hunt any legal way they want and not think there way is the only way.Way to many know it all on this site.Before we had computers most everyone just minded there own business and just enjoyed hunting


----------



## U of M Fan (May 8, 2005)

Luv2hunteup said:


> At the December UPCAC meeting there was a big discussion of scenarios after the CWD plan was passed out.  The DMUs bordering Wisconsin along with migration routes were discussed. It wasn't pretty if that's where a breakout occurred.


Definitely a scary scenario.


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## jafurnier (Jun 7, 2008)

retired dundo said:


> Somebody explain the differense between a bait pile and planting a small 15 by 15 food lot. Or planting a fruit tree or putting event out to a tract deer to new area.I think everybody should just hunt any legal way they want and not think there way is the only way.Way to many know it all on this site.Before we had computers most everyone just minded there own business and just enjoyed hunting


Having hunted both plots and fruit trees...baiting is more effective at getting a deer within bow range. Hands down. I have awesome plots and awesome fruit trees...and chum flat beats them both. In fact...on my favorite plot...I toss out corn right by my tree stand. Plot is a full one acre...and the deer come to the chum every time.

BTW...a 15x15 plot...is not in general a big draw. My cams don't lie. (Though I suppose in a desert...it might.)


----------



## Coffee Dude (Jul 15, 2015)

a pretty food plot with a corn pile in it. i might have to try this!


----------



## U of M Fan (May 8, 2005)

Coffee Dude said:


> a pretty food plot with a corn pile in it. i might have to try this!


It's kinda like adding chicken to a salad. You will eat most of the salad but all that chicken will be gone. Lol


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Welchman (May 12, 2006)

Yes, I would endorse a ban on baiting deer statewide as of today. At the very least this state's hunters should be willing to give up their bait piles in an effort to stop the spread of CWD. Ditto for salt blocks and mineral licks. Of course, this measure will not "solve" the CWD problem, but it is a significant step that can and should be taken to help keep the disease from spreading.

Yes, I am aware that apple trees, farm fields, and food plots also serve to concentrate deer. But it should be fairly obvious to any thinking human being that there is a significant difference between a 40 acre bean field and a pile of sugar beets when it comes to concentrating deer in a tight area. Anybody who wants to debate the fine points of such matters at a moment when the state's deer herd is in jeopardy is missing the big picture.

As for the difficulty of enforcing a ban on baiting, I think this has been overstated. It can be done, just as bans on other types of hunting infractions (night shooting, hunting out of season) help to control them. If we have the will to do this it is far from impossible.

I say this as a hunter who has used bait for over a decade--not because I enjoy hunting this way, but because the vast majority of other landowners in my area also use bait. I suspect that a lot of other hunters find themselves in this situation; they're not really happy hunting with bait, but if they don't use it they are at a distinct disadvantage to those who do. Others here have spoken about the elimination of baiting being better motivated by a return to "fair chase" methods, and I agree to some extent, but I think that doing what we can to help save the state's deer herd ought to be motivation enough to end baiting statewide.


----------



## Craves (Feb 16, 2010)

retired dundo said:


> I think everybody should just hunt any legal way they want and not think there way is the only way.


What you & many others don't get is that there are those that want baiting banned to make it ILLEGAL. 

Now CWD has reared its ugly head in your state...still want to throw down that bag of carrots because you bought a license & the state owes you a deer?


----------



## hunthunt (May 28, 2015)

Welchman said:


> Yes, I would endorse a ban on baiting deer statewide as of today. At the very least this state's hunters should be willing to give up their bait piles in an effort to stop the spread of CWD. Ditto for salt blocks and mineral licks. Of course, this measure will not "solve" the CWD problem, but it is a significant step that can and should be taken to help keep the disease from spreading.
> 
> Yes, I am aware that apple trees, farm fields, and food plots also serve to concentrate deer. But it should be fairly obvious to any thinking human being that there is a significant difference between a 40 acre bean field and a pile of sugar beets when it comes to concentrating deer in a tight area. Anybody who wants to debate the fine points of such matters at a moment when the state's deer herd is in jeopardy is missing the big picture.
> 
> ...


Well stated,amen!!


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Welchman said:


> I say this as a hunter who has used bait for over a decade--not because I enjoy hunting this way, but because the vast majority of other landowners in my area also use bait. I suspect that a lot of other hunters find themselves in this situation; they're not really happy hunting with bait, but if they don't use it they are at a distinct disadvantage to those who do.


I'm no expert on hunting deer over bait, but I've heard remarks from guys I know who have practiced it which are the same as what Welchman has shared. You might call it "defensive baiting", where hunters feel they have to throw down some bait because they are surrounded by other hunters who bait. It's an unfortunate and ugly aspect of baiting.


----------



## Riva (Aug 10, 2006)

I believe that if baiting were banned due to issues involving fair chase, violations would be more considered more serious. I would liken it to being caught trespassing, out-of season while using a rifle in the shotgun zone, all at once.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Okay this is just a question but a serious one. If the prions can exist in the soil and in anything that grows in the soil, should there be a b an on agricultural items such as seed or fruits or vegetables and trees from states where CWD is common? Meaning if you buy seed corn with the prions couldn't you be spreading the prions over hundreds of acres when planting? Again, I am just asking a question for input from someone who knows more than I do on the subject.

Ganzer


----------



## Walt Donaldson (Feb 23, 2015)

U of M Fan said:


> Let's ban hunters who feel the need to tell other hunters how to hunt.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


Let's ban all Michigan Fans who want to ban all other hunters. The list is small.


----------



## U of M Fan (May 8, 2005)

Walt Donaldson said:


> Let's ban all Michigan Fans who want to ban all other hunters. The list is small.


So Spartan fans would get a free pass???? Racist lol


Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Coffee Dude (Jul 15, 2015)

All you dudes that want baiting banned need to wake up and smell the COFFEE. If you truely want to slow the spread of cwd then you guys should be the ones with the most and biggest bait piles, then from early antlerless to January slaughter every button buck, doe, buck that shows up..


----------



## FullQuiver (May 2, 2006)

Coffee Dude said:


> All you dudes that want baiting banned need to wake up and smell the COFFEE. If you truely want to slow the spread of cwd then you guys should be the ones with the most and biggest bait piles, then from early antlerless to January slaughter every button buck, doe, buck that shows up..


What makes you think anyone needs bait to get that done? It has far more to do with who will pull the trigger and far less about methods.... Baiting will just increase risks that any disease will spread faster....


----------



## Coffee Dude (Jul 15, 2015)

FullQuiver said:


> What makes you think anyone needs bait to get that done? It has far more to do with who will pull the trigger and far less about methods.... Baiting will just increase risks that any disease will spread faster....


FL said he is no expert at hunting over bait, i am an expert at hunting deer over bait. I can easily change deer movement and attract every deer on my block with the correct bait setup. Cwd is here u CAN NOT stop it only slow it down. Regardless of which county u are hunting your goal should be to kill every deer u can this season, so get creative with baiting and kill every deer that comes in. Its about kill as many deer as u can, baiting is the ticket.


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Coffee Dude said:


> Ok. I will leave it at this= HULK HOGAN says dont worry about cwd BROTHER !!!!!!


You have been erased from MSF just as your hero did from WWE. Just thought I would rub in a little salt. :lol:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...an-in-wake-of-controversial-n-word-audio.html


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

billmitch said:


> But, we all kow that baiting, food plotting, can bring deer into close contact with each other. Its a vector of transmission of disease, time to end it. I know you cant ban plots but you can discourage hunters from planting them.


----------



## Walt Donaldson (Feb 23, 2015)

bioactive said:


>


This is not to scale. I call hooey pooey on this one.


----------



## Alan Michaels (Mar 21, 2014)

bioactive said:


>


Most the deer are going to enter this area from the same cover and start grazing along the edges at the same places before they disperse. Anybody who ever watched food plots would know this.


----------



## LCO (Jun 26, 2015)

Alan Michaels said:


> Most the deer are going to enter this area from the same cover and start grazing along the edges at the same places before they disperse. Anybody who ever watched food plots would know this.


When portions are grazed deer tend to disperse a little. With bait it is one focal point. I don't believe the risks between the two are much different but baiting is easier to enforce/regulate.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

According to the DNR CWD plan *management practices that increase biological carrying capacity *may cause CWD to persist and spread....
Note the emphasis is on "carrying capacity" versus increasing "population density". What has more potential to increase carrying capacity in the long run; food plots or 2 gallons of corn placed during hunting seasons?
Isn't one defined objective of QDM to increase carrying capacity? Something to think about anyway.
<----<<<


----------



## NovemberWhitetailz (Oct 10, 2008)

Alan Michaels said:


> Most the deer are going to enter this area from the same cover and start grazing along the edges at the same places before they disperse. Anybody who ever watched food plots would know this.


Right! Same thing....


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

billmitch said:


> That shouldnt mean you dont do anything to try and limit its spread. Sure there are always a couple jackwagons trying to denounce how others hunt but there will always be a few bad apples.
> 
> But, we all kow that baiting, food plotting, can bring deer into close contact with each other. Its a vector of transmission of disease, time to end it. I know you cant ban plots but you can discourage hunters from planting them.
> We also know young buck dispersal is the most likely way of this spreading to other parts of the state. So lets put an emphasis on killing every young buck in the CWD zone.
> ...


The most likely way of spreading this disease is deer urine whether directly out of a deer or bottle. Russ Mason did say in his podcast the bottled deer urine could be the cause of this out break, one of the other was deer parts imported from an infected state. Hunters could end up being the leading cause which is very sad.


----------



## billmitch (Dec 21, 2009)

That's a good picture Jim, but it doesn't change the fact that food plots bring deer closer together. My point wasn't a debate about which one is worse.


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

billmitch said:


> That's a good picture Jim, but it doesn't change the fact that food plots bring deer closer together. My point wasn't a debate about which one is worse.


As one who is in his 16th year of foodplotting, I don't buy this at all. In my observations, food plots encourage deer to spread out more broadly across the landscape, rather than congregating in ag fields and bedding areas.


----------



## Walt Donaldson (Feb 23, 2015)

farmlegend said:


> As one who is in his 16th year of foodplotting, I don't buy this at all. In my observations, food plots encourage deer to spread out more broadly across the landscape, rather than congregating in ag fields and bedding areas.


I've read your useless posts for far too long now. I'm blocking you.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

Munster lander used to post pics that demonstrated how deer cluster, even in ag fields. Did he go and get himself banned again? Is everyone really that thin skinned?


----------



## jafurnier (Jun 7, 2008)

Coffee Dude said:


> a pretty food plot with a corn pile in it. i might have to try this!


It works amazingly well...


----------



## jafurnier (Jun 7, 2008)

Alan Michaels said:


> Most the deer are going to enter this area from the same cover and start grazing along the edges at the same places before they disperse. Anybody who ever watched food plots would know this.


I suppose in some situations this is true. But honestly...I had better tell my deer that they are supposed to do this. In 8 years they have never gotten the message!

The awesome thing about bait in a plot...you can work the wind a bit better. I know where every deer will end up spending a few minutes in the plot...at the chum.

Another interesting thing about bait in the plot...unlike a lone pile in the woods...in my plots they come right to the bait, eat a bit, then move off to graze. Adult deer eat less than a few minutes. Fawns can park on the chum. But adult deer grab a few mouthfuls then slide off.


----------



## billmitch (Dec 21, 2009)

Farmlegend said michigan hunters wnt do what is necessary to slow it down and he was right.


----------



## Smokin-the-eyes (Jan 4, 2014)

If we ban the use then we have to ban the sale of bait the last time they banned it every gas station still had bags of apples and corn (it was to feed livestock yeah right) if one person in a section baits it ruins it for everyone else no bait deer have to move more and yes i do use bait when its legal i am not doubting how effective it is but in the years it was banned i seen way more deer but my opportunity at killing one was down for sure

I think the dnr was aware of the amount of illegal baiting goin on and there wasnt much they could do about it so they are a lil timid about baning it again imo


----------



## brushbuster (Nov 9, 2009)

Rasputin said:


> Munster lander used to post pics that demonstrated how deer cluster, even in ag fields. Did he go and get himself banned again? Is everyone really that thin skinned?


I don't think he is banned.


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

brushbuster said:


> I don't think he is banned.


Good. It's summer, maybe most if the usual prolific posters are out enjoying summer.


----------



## Quack Addict (Aug 10, 2006)

HUBBHUNTER2 said:


> Right! Same thing....


Interesting how your bait plot picture is a green field vs a handful of corn in a hole in the snow. You've never seen deer dig through snow in a bait plot and have multiple heads eating off the same turnip? LOL

With prions, it doesn't matter if the deer swap spit or pass through the same spot 2 years apart. 

How many does can a CWD+ buck infect during breeding season?


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

farmlegend said:


> As one who is in his 16th year of foodplotting, I don't buy this at all. In my observations, food plots encourage deer to spread out more broadly across the landscape, rather than congregating in ag fields and bedding areas.


Absolutely the case and it is the main reason I plant food plots. The more food plots there are, the more the doe families can disperse, reducing the stress levels of competition for food, and forcing greater movement of bucks.

Showing examples of deer clustering in small food plots is illustrating something that does happen at times, but it is not the norm. The norm with a bait pile is serial use of a micro area by multiple deer families who would normally have a much lower chance of contact with each other when using more natural and larger food sources. People want to take the exception to the rule and apply it as if it was the rule.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Bioactive said:


> Yeah Munster. Having fewer food sources will concentrate deer less. And having more food sources will concentrate them more.
> 
> Gotta love it.
> 
> ...


Having fewer food sources comprised of planted agricultural products such as turnips, sugar beets, corn, soybeans, rye, wheat, etc. will most certainly decrease the un-natural aggregation that occurs when those types of food sources are available. Deer feeding on naturally occurring forbs and other types of browse do not aggregate in the same way that they do at bait piles and food plots and as a result do not create prion depositories, which can facilitate the spread of disease. Maybe a course of Cervid social behavior 101 is in order for some people.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

[/QUOTE]

You show winter deer yarding on a food source. Deer are going to yard up at times in every part of our state. In ag country, they yard in safe areas on hay fields, winter wheat fields, on food plots, and on natural browse. The idea that having fewer areas for them to feed on in winter is better for them is just plain silly and disingenuous.

Below is a video showing about 100 deer that yarded on natural horsetail in 2014 for about 2 months. Deer are going to yard on whatever features are available when the snow gets deep, whether those features be natural, like the horsetail, or man-made, like food plots or hay fields.

Deer browsing on natural features.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

Munsterlndr said:


> You don't have a point to be proven, all you have is a ridiculous notion that increasing the number of food plots will somehow mitigate concentrations of deer, despite there being absolutely no proof to support that fantasy.
> 
> I used to plant multiple small plots on my property and I had deer cams on each plot. I saw the same deer, using all of the plots on a regular basis. If I added additional plots, all that would happen is that those same deer would use those, too. Some of my neighbors also plant plots, the same deer that I see on my cam's show up on their cams, as well. Make food easily available and deer will come, they don't stick to just one plot, they will utilize any available food sources within their home ranges.
> 
> Take note, though, that when discussing the potential negative impact of property improvements, that I'm talking about planted crops. I've mentioned numerous times previously on these forums that if someone wants to "help" the herd (which really does not need any help) yet do so in a responsible way in terms of disease risk mitigation, then creating natural forage via opening up canopies, etc, is an excellent means of doing so. I have no problem with creating additional natural forage because deer feeding on natural forage do not aggregate unnaturally as they do with planted crops. So if you feel compelled to feed the herd, try and do it as naturally as possible, it will do the least amount of harm in terms of facilitating disease.


I am obsessed with deer behavior ! My 50 is unbelievable when it comes to observing deer. I have tiny food plots and bio is correct, these doe families dont want to share a small plot, i get to witness this every year. Im not talking about a 2 acre plot, if you provide lots of tiny plots the does will spread out.


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

bioactive said:


> Imagine you are going to have a kegger. There are going to be 200 people there. Will you get more of a concentration around a given keg if you have more kegs available or fewer kegs?.


Can I go???


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> I have no problem with creating additional natural forage because deer feeding on natural forage do not aggregate unnaturally as they do with planted crops. So if you feel compelled to feed the herd, try and do it as naturally as possible, it will do the least amount of harm in terms of facilitating disease.


I'm not sure you could come up with a more nonsensical statement considering the classic reality of Northern yarding behavior on natural features.

Here is an example of deer feeding on natural features of horsetail, dogwoods, cedars, and willows.

The more disparate food sources there are in an area, the lower the concentration of deer on any given feature.

You would have us decrease the availability of food and water for the existing herd, as if that will make them concentrate less on remaining features.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> I'm not sure you could come up with a more nonsensical statement considering the classic reality of Northern yarding behavior on natural features.
> 
> Here is an example of deer feeding on natural features of horsetail, dogwoods, cedars, and willows.
> 
> ...


My comments about natural browse not producing the type of aggregating effect that food plots and bait piles do was primarily directed towards summer and fall use, not winter yarding situations. But having said that, I've never seen the type of concentrations of deer feeding on naturally occurring browse, as you seem to have on your property, so in light of your video, let me modify my earlier comments;

"I have no problem with creating additional natural forage because deer feeding on natural forage do not aggregate unnaturally as they do with planted crops, unless you are located in areas of the state or on properties that have insanely high deer densities. In those areas, you are probably better off doing nothing in terms of habitat creation, due to the concentrating impact those efforts may have."

Happy now, Jim?


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

bioactive said:


> My larger Hillsdale county property is designed for daytime use in fall and early winter by bucks and does and by does in spring and summer. Deer that bed on my property spend most of the night in the fall on nearby ag properties where they do nighttime bedding and feeding, returning to bedding areas on my property in the morning. It is rare to see bucks on the property any time before hard antler. It is occupied almost exclusively by doe families in summer and the bucks do not show up until after hard antler. The last thing in the world I want is for deer to all follow the same paths or to collect up in the same spots. That minimizes buck movement which is the main goal of the design.
> 
> I consider it disingenuous when someone like Munster says having fewer food sources is better for deer, and that having more food and water sources will make deer collect in higher concentration around around those sources. The more food sources there are, the less competition there will be among doe families and the less concentration of deer there will be on any source. Disparate doe families will do anything they can to avoid overlapping and I do everything I can to design things so they don't overlap and their competition and sharing of resources is reduced, which forces buck movement to check out the widely scattered doe families, and produces hunting all over the property rather than just in discrete spots. Show me a guy who wants to pull a whole bunch of deer into a single spot on a property and I will show you someone who does not understand how to design a property for quality hunting.
> 
> ...


________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Beer and Nuts posted this thread awhile ago.

LINK: http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/threads/cwd-and-food-plots.254135/

He asked a question on the web site (CWD-INFO.ORG) about CWD and food plots.

CWD is only one of many diseases that can be spread and propagated through the congregation of animals. *There is no doubt that if feed plots were being used in an area where CWD was present in wild populations, the risk of spreading the disease at that site would increase.* *Based on studies from the University of Michigan, risk of CWD transmission at these sites may be even higher than most diseases since the prions likely responsible for transmitting the disease persist in the soil for several years.* These finding have been anecdotally verified at the Colorado Division of Wildlife Research Facility where CWD was first identified.

Matt Dunfee

Chronic Wasting Disease Alliance Coordinator

Wildlife Management Institute 

Post Office Box 33819

Washington, DC 20033-0819

Who am I to believe? You or him?

You even admit that you would continue to pass yearling bucks in the CWD hot zone.

Kind of shows how far some of you will go to further the MI-QDM agenda.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

Habitat in ag., and even "natural" areas can result in concentration in bedding areas.
Yarding is only one example.
Deer often defecate when leaving their beds or shortly after. A prime transmission source in early stage prion development in infected cervids.
Easy to view transmission source as smootchin deer and sharing food, but it's contact with prions;long after deposited in/on earth as well. A simple bedding area anywhere can be a source.
Everywhere digested bait or any other food hits the ground from an infected animal presents the same effect of more prions.
Arguing where they get their food is near moot. Even if providing it could keep the deer in a more limited,(not confined or condensed)area it would only be a temporary delay of risk.
I'm hopin folks monitoring and sampling are plugged in with prion studies like Alberta's University's and others as well as free sourcing info and findings.
Captive herds may have in the past reflected a higher rate due to the number of sampled deer?
That should change with more wild samples if a severe outbreak occurs.
C.W.D. has changed some hunting; but not stopped it.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

The title of this thread is still a hypothetical suggestion... We are still talking about a 8-9 mile radius where 2 deer have been tested positive in a semi suburban landscape correct? Until our STATE OFFICIALS and the correct QUALIFIED people determine what plans of action should be taken for the rest of the 99.9% part of state, everything here is moot by all keyboard cowboys...On that note, if my dirt is dried out finally by this Saturday, I will be planting my third and final 1 acre food plot...


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Bait piles, food plots, AG field and natural forage all concentrate deer but if you eradicate them and maintain an eradication policy in CWD zone no deer will contract CWD or spread it.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> My comments about natural browse not producing the type of aggregating effect that food plots and bait piles do was primarily directed towards summer and fall use, not winter yarding situations.


If so why did you show a picture that clearly is winter yarding activity?


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

bioactive said:


> If so why did you show a picture that clearly is winter yarding activity?


To be intentionally misleading and disingenuous.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

Imagine you are going to have a kegger. There are going to be 200 people there. Will you get more of a concentration around a given keg if you have more kegs available or fewer kegs?

[/QUOTE]


More kegs spread the crowd out somewhat but I think the argument against you is that you would still need to ban keggers all together. That is the part you aren't getting. Wether you have one keg or 15 smaller kegs you are congregating 200 people that you wouldn't be if you weren't offering kegs.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> If so why did you show a picture that clearly is winter yarding activity?


That pic was used because it was of a food plot utilizing root crops, specifically planted by a well known food plot specialist, for the purpose of providing over winter food for his deer herd. Whether the concentration is due to yarding or the easy availability of high quality food is somewhat moot, the fact that deer are sharing bites off of turnips and eating root crops in a concentrated area where a fair amount of soil is ingested along with the food, illustrates the potential negative impact that such plots can have on facilitating the transmission of disease. 

Your notion that planting multiple plots will reduce the potential for contact between family groups may seem logical to you but it ignores the fact that the same deer utilizing existing plots will rotate between all of the new ones that you create and if any of them are infected with CWD, prion shedding will occur in all of the new plots, as well. If your new plots are spread out enough geographically, you may even be increasing the rate of exposure because you may be drawing new deer in from adjacent areas that would not have visited the existing larger plot. 

You can keep trying to rationalize it any way you like but the fact remains that providing artificial food sources for deer increases the potential for the spread of communicable disease where present.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

DirtySteve said:


> Imagine you are going to have a kegger. There are going to be 200 people there. Will you get more of a concentration around a given keg if you have more kegs available or fewer kegs?



More kegs spread the crowd out somewhat but I think the argument against you is that you would still need to ban keggers all together. That is the part you aren't getting. Wether you have one keg or 15 smaller kegs you are congregating 200 people that you wouldn't be if you weren't offering kegs.[/QUOTE]

What Bio is also ignoring in his analogy is that food plot use is not by invitation only. He may have only invited 200 people but once word got out on social media that there was free Pabst available, another 300 lowlifes showed up to swill beer from the other 15 kegs. Provide the beer and they will drink it, plant the plots and they will come. So which scenario contaminates the soil more, 200 guys peeing in the woods after drinking from one keg or 500 after drinking from 15?


----------



## stickbow shooter (Dec 19, 2010)

Right on the money Munster. Anything that we do to congregate deer has the potential to spread this disease or others. When man tends to " fix " things it usually doesn't go well.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

The deer are already there. If they are infected, they are already spreading prions rather there is a plot, crops, mineral licks or a bait pile. Get them where you want them and then shoot them and have them tested. Bait is now illegal where the CWD was found so arguing the bait issue there is nonsense. People will continue to plant food plots and crops will always be planted.

Ganzer


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

DirtySteve said:


> Imagine you are going to have a kegger. There are going to be 200 people there. Will you get more of a concentration around a given keg if you have more kegs available or fewer kegs?what if all of his neighbors had keggers also ?



More kegs spread the crowd out somewhat but I think the argument against you is that you would still need to ban keggers all together. That is the part you aren't getting. Wether you have one keg or 15 smaller kegs you are congregating 200 people that you wouldn't be if you weren't offering kegs.[/QUOTE]


Munsterlndr said:


> More kegs spread the crowd out somewhat but I think the argument against you is that you would still need to ban keggers all together. That is the part you aren't getting. Wether you have one keg or 15 smaller kegs you are congregating 200 people that you wouldn't be if you weren't offering kegs.


What Bio is also ignoring in his analogy is that food plot use is not by invitation only. He may have only invited 200 people but once word got out on social media that there was free Pabst available, another 300 lowlifes showed up to swill beer from the other 15 kegs. Provide the beer and they will drink it, plant the plots and they will come. So which scenario contaminates the soil more, 200 guys peeing in the woods after drinking from one keg or 500 after drinking from 15?[/QUOTE]
Ok. So lets say habitat guys are the problem. What do you suggest and what are you doing to stop or slow the spread of cwd ? Should every tree in the state of MI be bulldozed & every corn field cut so we can see and kill every deer until they are extinct in MI?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> Ok. So lets say habitat guys are the problem. What do you suggest and what are you doing to stop or slow the spread of cwd ? Should every tree in the state of MI be bulldozed & every corn field cut so we can see and kill every deer until they are extinct in MI?


I didn't say that habitat guys are the problem, all I've said is that in areas where CWD has been found or is suspected, such as the current CZ and the immediate area surrounding it, that any voluntary activities that concentrate deer, such as baiting, food plots, man made water holes, mineral licks, deer urine spread on mock scrapes, etc, should be discouraged, as it increases the potential for the spread of communicable disease.

What am I doing to stop or slow the spread of disease? Well, it's not in the area in which I hunt so I can't do anything physically to thwart the spread but I'm certainly trying to raise awareness about the issue and also providing push back on some idiotic ideas that some have suggested, such as preventing the harvest of yearling bucks during hunting season and expanding the number of focal points in which prion concentrations can occur.


----------



## Joe Archer (Mar 29, 2000)

How can anyone contend that the food plots described will not, or have not had an impact on carrying capacity??? :16suspect
According to the Michigan DNR CWD plan, *management practices that increase biological carrying capacity *may cause CWD to persist and spread.....
<----<<<


----------



## john warren (Jan 25, 2005)

banning baiting will help in a couple ways. it won't encourage nose to nose feeding. won't prevent it,,,but won't encourage it anyway, and that might save a few deer.
second it will lesson the pressure on the herds as about half of those that only know how to hunt over bait will stay home.
i like maines approach, to fix most of our deer troubles,,,, one deer per hunter, no baiting , mineral licks, or driving deer.
i know baiting has been around awhile in michigan, but my feelings are that its cheating. your training a deer to come to a specific spot for food. where is the sport in that?
instead we should be training ourselves to go where the deer are naturaly. learning their needs and finding them . not training them to find us. i have many deer to my credit and proudly state i have never used bait, lures,or calls to take one. nore have i ever been in a tree stand or artificial blind. and i only hnt state lands.
i say that not to prove what a great, hunter i am,,rather to simply say if an idiot like me can out fox a deer,,,you super hunters should be able to take plenty without all the gimmics and cheats.


----------



## DirtySteve (Apr 9, 2006)

john warren said:


> i like maines approach, to fix most of our deer troubles,,,, one deer per hunter, no baiting , mineral licks, or driving deer.


I don't think there is a state out there trying to change to Maine's deer management methods. Maine has more interest in bear and moose hunting than deer . There are only 200K deer and about 200K hunters depending on the yr. Trying to compare us to Maine isn't apples to apples. 

In michigan deer hunting is the number one game and there are alot of opinions on how to hunt them.....we also have vastly different regions across our state with different environments to pursue them in. 

I would love it if they would give us a bounty for coyotes to help the herd. Maine does that. Only 500 or so residents take them up on it each yr.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

john warren said:


> banning baiting will help in a couple ways. it won't encourage nose to nose feeding. won't prevent it,,,but won't encourage it anyway, and that might save a few deer.
> second it will lesson the pressure on the herds as about half of those that only know how to hunt over bait will stay home.
> i like maines approach, to fix most of our deer troubles,,,, one deer per hunter, no baiting , mineral licks, or driving deer.
> i know baiting has been around awhile in michigan, but my feelings are that its cheating. your training a deer to come to a specific spot for food. where is the sport in that?
> ...


Training a deer to come to a specific spot for food. So we can assume that this is cheating also?










We can also assume that you would never hunt near oak trees or any other mast producers?


----------



## Tom (mich) (Jan 17, 2003)

The internet is a great places to find pics that "prove" most anything. 









This pic proves that deer are not racist.









This pic proves that deer cannot swim.









This pic proves that deer jaywalk.









This pic proves that button bucks are horn dogs









This pic proves that even mature bucks can have bad hair days and its not limited to a doe issue.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

You forgot comfortable bedding areas and trained deer meter readers!..lol


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

john warren said:


> banning baiting will help in a couple ways. it won't encourage nose to nose feeding. won't prevent it,,,but won't encourage it anyway, and that might save a few deer.
> second it will lesson the pressure on the herds as about half of those that only know how to hunt over bait will stay home.
> i like maines approach, to fix most of our deer troubles,,,, one deer per hunter, no baiting , mineral licks, or driving deer.
> i know baiting has been around awhile in michigan, but my feelings are that its cheating. your training a deer to come to a specific spot for food. where is the sport in that?
> ...


One deer per year would hurt the deer hunting in many parts of the state. Populations would soar in many places and the deer hunters in the state would hate the idea. Also, the economy would suffer as well if people have to quit after one deer taken.

Ganzer


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Joe Archer said:


> How can anyone contend that the food plots described will not, or have not had an impact on carrying capacity??? :16suspect
> According to the Michigan DNR CWD plan, *management practices that increase biological carrying capacity *may cause CWD to persist and spread.....
> <----<<<


I would like to give a basic population biology lesson to whoever wrote that. Increased carrying capacity is not causative of population growth. It is permissive of healthy increases in population but it does not cause increased numbers. 

In areas with high carrying capacity, such as much of the SLP, the herd is controlled mainly by human predation. Adding food sources and water sources gives deer more choices and decreases the chances they are going to commingle. 

I specifically work to keep doe families separated on my property by providing multiple food and water sources. Other than in severe winter conditions, doe families will do anything they can to keep separate territories. Limiting their choices increases the chances they will congregate on the remaining food and water sources. Giving them more choices reduces the chances they will commingle.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Limiting their choices increases the chances they will congregate on the remaining food and water sources. Giving them more choices reduces the chances they will commingle.


Not true. If you were not providing any kind of food sources, those individual family groups would be unlikely to co-mingle. Adding artificial food sources, whether bait or planted, creates the conditions for the normal social barriers to break down and for increased contact between normally isolated social groups to occur. Increasing the number of artificial food sources only creates more concentrated areas for deer to shed prions, which can then be contacted by other deer when feeding.

You want to keep deer from co-mingling? Stop feeding them. Pretty simple, really.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Considering deer with CWD only inhabit this type of an environment in Michigan maybe this is what should be banned.


----------



## Luv2hunteup (Mar 22, 2003)

Another example of what type of habitat is highly likely in the CWD zone.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Luv2hunteup said:


> Considering deer with CWD only inhabit this type of an environment in Michigan maybe this is what should be banned.
> View attachment 185973


This above is the exact landscape scenario that's going on in the hot zone right now. The tennis match argument "my mom can beat up your mom" bickering is futuristic at best..Why can't we discuss how to eradicate the problem with the actual landscape issue before us instead of arguing about areas and scenarios that haven't even happened yet?


----------



## jafurnier (Jun 7, 2008)

Munstr...

I agree in principal that concentrating deer will increase the concentration of prions/contact etc. Hard to argue.

Here comes the yeah but...

Is the increase unnacceptable in terms of risk? 

The fact the risk increases does not necessarily make an activity unnacceptable does it?

Deer are social. They will find each other and touch, lick, sniff etc. Also, before plotting...looking at the trails, browse ares, etc...they seemed to congregate well enough on their own. The pic you posted on root crops...I could take many on the landscape around me.

I feel like banning plotting, baiting, etc sounds great...but will not have a material impact on the long term outcome. 

This feels ike Asian carp...we can work on the rate of spread but the outcome is more feel good about the effort than anything substantial and meaningful. And while banning all of this stuff might have a marginal impact on the rate of spread...the margin might be insignificant as to make the banning a moot point.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

sniper said:


> This above is the exact landscape scenario that's going on in the hot zone right now. The tennis match argument "my mom can beat up your mom" bickering is futuristic at best..Why can't we discuss how to eradicate the problem with the actual landscape issue before us instead of arguing about areas and scenarios that haven't even happened yet?


Because it's highly unlikely that eradication in the type of urban landscape that the index case was found in, will occur. We are quickly going to find that CWD is entrenched in the herd and I suspect that it has already spread outside of that core urban zone into areas where land managers are actively engaging in voluntary practices which could serve to facilitate the spread of the disease. As Joe has said, it's just a matter of time before that circle starts to widen. Instead of wasting mental effort discussing eradication, which is an un-achievable goal, we would be better served focusing on what steps can be taken to limit the spread and scope of the disease and one of those steps is reducing or eliminating the focal points concentrating deer, which are created via the voluntary practices of hunters and land managers.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

jafurnier said:


> Munstr...
> 
> I agree in principal that concentrating deer will increase the concentration of prions/contact etc. Hard to argue.
> 
> ...


I totally agree that taking such measures may simply amount to pissing in the wind and that it won't have an iota of impact in terms of stopping the spread of CWD. That's an entirely possible scenario. On the other hand, it may have some impact and may help slow the spread, there is really no way to know. 

Deer are social but under normal conditions, they are also socially isolated into tight knit family groups that don't interact much with non-family group deer. Research has shown that the incidence of CWD is higher within given family groups, which would indicate that those inherent social barriers are a limiting factor in terms of reducing the spread. So reducing the number of focal points where non-family group deer interact would seem to be a good idea. 

In terms of the acceptable/unacceptable risk/benefit question, here is my take. The title of this thread concerns banning bait on a state wide basis. I don't see any reason for that to occur. The benefit is limited as is the impact on reducing the level of risk. Within the area around the index case, it's a different story. There I think the potential benefit is worth banning baiting and discouraging every other voluntary practice by land managers that also has the potential to concentrate deer. Increasing the number of focal points is not a good idea, all that does is increase the amount of contact between non-family group deer, as all of those additional focal points will be used by numerous deer. The fact that the use may not occur simultaneously ignores the reality of prion shedding and the concentrating effect that occurs in the soil at focal points. 

At a minimum, raising concerns about the potentially negative impact of such practices at least puts them on the radar of some hunters and can help focus attention on the potentially disastrous impact that CWD may have on deer hunting in Michigan over the long term.


----------



## john warren (Jan 25, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Training a deer to come to a specific spot for food. So we can assume that this is cheating also?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 so your saying that if you find natural food sources , and those areas where deer feed naturaly,,,it works just as good as baiting? which is what i was saying? and without the negative impacts of artificial feed sights? ,,,its good to agree on things with other sportsmen


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

MUNSTER, what is the potential disastrous impact that cwd could have on deer hunting in michigan ? Have u researched Wisconsin?


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Banning bait 200 miles from where the CWD was discovered is a knee jerk reaction that has no merit. Baiting is already banned in the three county area surrounding where the disease was found. You cannot ban food plots or any other type of habitat management for that manner. People can plant orchards, gardens, food plots. They can hinge cut, selective cut, clear cut and plant WSG etc. All of which spreads deer out. If you have 200 acres with 5 food plots the deer will be spread out as opposed to 200 acres with no plots but one feeder. The key in the core area isn't so much the bait or plots etc. The key there is will people pull the trigger or not? I am in Clinton County and my trigger restraint will be quite different this year as opposed to previous years just to get more deer on the ground. That's what the DNR is asking for so I will comply as I have already heard others in my area saying they will not out of fear the population will decline too much which I don't see happening.

Ganzer


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

MERGANZER said:


> Banning bait 200 miles from where the CWD was discovered is a knee jerk reaction that has no merit. Baiting is already banned in the three county area surrounding where the disease was found. You cannot ban food plots or any other type of habitat management for that manner. People can plant orchards, gardens, food plots. They can hinge cut, selective cut, clear cut and plant WSG etc. All of which spreads deer out. If you have 200 acres with 5 food plots the deer will be spread out as opposed to 200 acres with no plots but one feeder. The key in the core area isn't so much the bait or plots etc. The key there is will people pull the trigger or not? I am in Clinton County and my trigger restraint will be quite different this year as opposed to previous years just to get more deer on the ground. That's what the DNR is asking for so I will comply as I have already heard others in my area saying they will not out of fear the population will decline too much which I don't see happening.
> 
> Ganzer


I agree with everything you say but the 200 mile away knee jerk. I believe that doe had cwd for atleast 4 years. Think about it, does anyone really think that doe caught cwd from a hikers boot and 6 weeks later she has symptoms and near death ? I would bet that cwd is spread through half of MI by now, we just dont know it because deer are killed by hunters before they have time to show symptoms.


----------



## MERGANZER (Aug 24, 2006)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> I agree with everything you say but the 200 mile away knee jerk. I believe that doe had cwd for atleast 4 years. Think about it, does anyone really think that doe caught cwd from a hikers boot and 6 weeks later she has symptoms and near death ? I would bet that cwd is spread through half of MI by now, we just dont know it because deer are killed by hunters before they have time to show symptoms.


You may be right. I rarely use bait so it really doesn't mean a whole lot to me. What I want to know is more about CWD and what are all the possibilities. Are we importing fruit trees or seed from CWD states? Can the prions be carried in via the gulf stream? Do we allow topsoil and mulch and wood chips etc. come from CWD states? There seems to be so many ways the prions could get here and if the answer is yes to those questions then you are correct. The whole state could have the prions currently.

Ganzer


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> Instead of wasting mental effort discussing eradication, which is an un-achievable goal, we would be better served focusing on what steps can be taken to limit the spread and scope of the disease and one of those steps is reducing or eliminating the focal points concentrating deer, which are created via the voluntary practices of hunters and land managers.


Herd reduction is achievable and then herd maintenance to keep numbers down.

Focal points concentrating deer, exist in unimproved habitat, you can't deny that. I believe every bit as much as improved. Existing land features such as elevation changes, really challenge your take on improved habitats. Improving habitat and spreading out focal points and then continued herd and habitat maintenance IMO would be a good way to manage CWD. .

An infected deer spreads the disease regardless whether it lives on unimproved, improved, farmlands or woodlands. The way I see it, the only way to help control CWD is herd management.


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> Any way you slice it, using mineral licks of salt blocks in areas where disease is a known factor exhibits poor judgement.


Your generalizing here. Any way you slice it a mineral /salt block in the open, more than likely is the safest thing a hunter could put out for deer to kill off btb..



Munsterlndr said:


> Couple that with the fact that the research conducted by Amanda Fine and John Kaneene, at MSU, conclusively documented the fact that bTB can survive for extended periods on numerous substrates, including soil and water


For the record. You just stated what I have been saying for 15 years. Michigan had a study done see if btb could lived on bait. The surprising thing that came back was the fact that the conditions were great for btb to live down to freezing temperatures out of the sunlight. This went along with what I was saying to bait haters back then that btb may very likely lying under the grass at oak trees (and apple trees) Bait haters went into a tizzy!
How many times less likely would it be for btb to be on SALT in the sunlight that almost immediately kills it? 10 times? 20 times? Salt is most likely the safest thing that hunters have easy access to that they could put out for deer 



Munsterlndr said:


> For the record....., the State of Michigan considers salt blocks an "at risk" factor for the transmission of Bovine TB. Maybe they know something that you don't.
> .


For the record don't you think it's proper for a biologist to always say don't feed the animals? Do you think that salt blocks are included in this statement to consider the social aspects of dealing with people that feed and bait.

None of this applies to cwd areas.


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Munsterlndr said:


> Fewer focal points that concentrate deer *while feeding* occur in unimproved landscapes. There is a reason that the social structure of deer evolved the way it has. One of those reasons is that mostly naturally occurring browse cannot support huge concentrations of deer, so to prevent food supplies from being wiped out, family groups become territorial and socially isolated, thus preserving the viability of the food supply within their home ranges.
> 
> Introducing artificial food sources causes those social barriers to break down and results in substantially more interaction between non-family member deer, which is the nexus for disease transmission. Deer will inevitably spread disease but there are ways to slow that spread by taking advantage of the natural social barriers that exist within the herd.


Deer habits change daily as they follow food sources that also change daily. What's the difference between someone putting out a legal bait pile and a popple tree that blew down in a storm. Both temporary food sources that change where the deer may move to.

Food/water sources are not the only issues that cause deer to concentrate, bedding, staging areas, travel routes and even weather. Habitat workers, dog walkers, bicyclists, small game hunters, boaters ,airplanes, nudists, etc, the list can go on, can also push deer to concentrate.

One thing that don't change as much is the travel routes created by elevation changes, or also called game trails that been there and used for years. These areas have got to come into play, more than food.

"Less deer" *Trumps* worrying about where deer are eating.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> QDMA supporters seem to be less tolerant of anyone with a difference of opinion. Kind of a "My way, or the highway" type of attitude. jmo


I think that's stereotyping. Not everyone that disagrees and follows along with these discussions are QDMA members, including myself.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Airoh said:


> For the record don't you think it's proper for a biologist to always say don't feed the animals? Do you think that salt blocks are included in this statement to consider the social aspects of dealing with people that feed and bait.
> 
> None of this applies to cwd areas.


I don't think the issue is the salt block itself. I think the issue is the increased disease risk in proximity to the salt block.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

field-n-feathers said:


> I think that's stereotyping. Not everyone that disagrees and follows along with these discussions are QDMA members, including myself.


Maybe, goes both ways though, don't you agree?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Airoh said:


> Your generalizing here. Any way you slice it a mineral /salt block in the open, more than likely is the safest thing a hunter could put out for deer to kill off btb..


Let me generalize again, the safest thing a hunter could put out for deer would be nothing. 

That's probably the best course of action in areas where disease is a concern.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> Maybe, goes both ways though, don't you agree?


In certain instances I suppose it does. I don't feel that someone such as Bryan would erroneously stake his reputation/achievements on QDMA fodder. I think it's more a case of you dismissing his opinion due to you not agreeing with QDMA principals, rather than his message. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have asked me the question to begin with.


----------



## U of M Fan (May 8, 2005)

I'm off to drink some of Germany's finest beer. I hope you guys have this all figured out by the time I come back. Lol 




Sent from my iPhone using Ohub Campfire


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

field-n-feathers said:


> In certain instances I suppose it does. I don't feel that someone such as Bryan would erroneously stake his reputation/achievements on QDMA fodder.


It's not necessarily a bad thing to know which side your bread is buttered on, either... 

Just sayin'.


----------



## Airoh (Jan 19, 2000)

Lock step with the biologists on this one?
...where disease is a concern.... seems to be your get out of jail free card. You do realize disease is wherever there are deer. And yet I seem to remember posts of your food plots.



Munsterlndr said:


> Let me generalize again, the safest thing a hunter could put out for deer would be nothing.
> 
> That's probably the best course of action in areas where disease is a concern.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> I very rarely disagree with well known and respected biologists, with exception of Dr. Deer, who tends to spout a fair amount of bs that is unsupported by sound science. See Brassica Toxicity and killing prions with bleach.
> 
> I'm also pretty careful to indicate when something I say is an unsupported opinion and when it's an observation based on documented research material, which most of my observations are based on.
> 
> ...


This above reminds me of Leonardo DiCaprio's character in the movie "Catch Me If You Can"...His character was a well rounded fellow also...Munstr when I read your posts there is no doubt you are highly intelligent guy and I've taken in some info for sure..But I also read a ton of hypothetical's, predictions, guessing, and futuristic oversees that no one can possibly know the answers to until actually something happens. There is definitely a difference between scientific knowledge and someone's up most opinion. And sometimes you come off as the latter. And by no means is that knock on your intelligence.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> If you really want to slow the cwd spread shouldnt you be looking into buying property in the hot zone so you can kill as many deer as possible? You would be doing the deer herd and the rest of us hunters a great favor. Im starting to think you're all talk...



I have at great time and expense aquired leases within the 10 mile perimeter.
All talk?
What time does the buses leave your driveway or a Hillsdale co-ops for the CZ to do your part?
Greatest part about the Internet is you can figure out relatively quickly between the doers, the bitchers, the politicians and the skeptics.
Welcome to the site, HMW.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

Joe Archer said:


> I recommend that you contact the DNR directly and demand a retraction! Let us know how that turns out for you? The statement comes from the published CWD response plan, so in the meantime I think it is safe to accept that *management practices that increase biological carrying capacity *may cause CWD to persist and spread.....
> <----<<<


And if by any means, you think the DNR words have been God over the years, I got news..Ask numerous posters on these forums how the DNR's dictations and publications have gone over the years...Yikes!...


----------



## Craves (Feb 16, 2010)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> QDMA supporters seem to be less tolerant of anyone with a difference of opinion. Kind of a "My way, or the highway" type of attitude. jmo


Thank you for posting one of the most inane, simplistic, moronic posts I have read...jmo.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Airoh said:


> Lock step with the biologists on this one?
> ...where disease is a concern.... seems to be your get out of jail free card. You do realize disease is wherever there are deer. And yet I seem to remember posts of your food plots.


While disease may be present where deer are present, it's kind of taken for granted in these discussions that we are talking about two serious diseases, bTB and CWD and they are not present "wherever there are deer". If someone is outside of the bTB zone or the CWD zone, put out all the minerals you want, as long as it is legal, I have no problem with it. My concern is transmission of those two particular diseases, as they have the potential to have a very negative impact on hunting in Michigan. Any food plot that I plant or bait that I use, is only used a long way from any known cases of either of those diseases. If disease is found near where I own property, both of those activities would cease immediately, as I would hope would be the case with anyone who cares about the resource.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Munster, is your position that baiting and/or food plots increase the amount of deer using a property? A simple yes or no will suffice.


----------



## LCO (Jun 26, 2015)

beer and nuts said:


> Oh boy. The experts are out in full force now!!


Not an expert, but the goal is to have deer bed at X feed at Y and hunt in between. 
If done properly your doe families will not bed or feed together ( this does not include a destination food source as they will feed in the same large destination food source) 
If you set up a property correctly there will be food ( usually a small food plot) close to doe bedding with hopefully bucks bedding not to far behind them. 
As each doe family exits the bedding they will browse their way to the food plot. Spend a few minutes in the plot and then work their way to their destination food source. 
If you have enough small plots to accommodate each doe family on your property they will have no reason to visit the other plots. 
Bucks will follow but they will visit every plot, licking branch, scrape etc. 
I used to have a series of small plots on the interior of a property I hunted. I had one tree I could see 4 of these plots. One was 200 yards away, one was about 100 yards away and the other two were within 50 yards of this stand. I would watch the same deer enter from different bedding areas and feed in these plots before moving off that property to the large crop fields. 
One evening I had 7 different bucks check these 4 plots about 3 times each.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

wintrrun said:


> I have at great time and expense aquired leases within the 10 mile perimeter.
> All talk?
> What time does the buses leave your driveway or a Hillsdale co-ops for the CZ to do your part?
> Greatest part about the Internet is you can figure out relatively quickly between the doers, the bitchers, the politicians and the skeptics.
> Welcome to the site, HMW.


Im doing my part, im telling everyone i hunt with to shoot every 3.5 year old or older buck that they see, might even shoot a doe ! We are starting a new co-op if you are interested?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

field-n-feathers said:


> Munster, is your position that baiting and/or food plots increase the amount of deer using a property? A simple yes or no will suffice.


Maybe. 

Happy?


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> Maybe.
> 
> Happy?


No. You like qualifiers, so I'll add one.

Again, generally speaking, do you feel that bait/food plots increase the amount of deer using a property?


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

farmlegend said:


> So….is it a negative to do things which would cause deer to congregate? Or a positive?
> 
> You have said over and over and over again my friends that actions taken by humans that serve to congregate deer represent a risk factor for CWD. Then, shazam, when someone suggests management activities that are certain to reduce the concentration of deer activity, well….those are bad too! Some might point out that you’re attempting to have it both ways, so that you can oppose any sort of habitat work whatsoever in areas at risk for CWD, regardless of whether those activities concentrate or disperse the deer. Why, one might ask, would you suggest something so seemingly contradictory? I’ll let others speculate.
> 
> ...


That is the exact point I was heading towards with him. On one hand the guy says dispersal is bad, then on the other he says concentration is bad. I suspect the right thing to do lies somewhere in between. But, in the meantime we can continue reading this verbose agenda driven nonsense, hidden under the guise of disease "concern".


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> :16suspect
> There is no question that my activities have caused deer activity within that 800 acre zone to be far less concentrated today that it was two decades ago when I began my toil.


Sure there is a question. You stating that to be the case, while trying to justify your habitat endeavors, does not make is so. Taking ten does a year off of 800 acres does not exactly equate to the Katyn Forest of deer hunting. We harvest 2 -3 does a year off of my 40 and which has a third of the density of your property. That's not meant to be critical of your efforts but without knowing the density then compared to now, the recruitment rate, etc. there is no way to make an informed opinion of whether or not your improvements have had an impact on increasing concentration. You are not located in the CZ, so your efforts don't pose a threat but you are kidding yourself if you think that on the macro level that food plots and baiting don't tend to concentrate deer in an un-natural manner.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

field-n-feathers said:


> That is the exact point I was heading towards with him. On one hand the guy says dispersal is bad, then on the other he says concentration is bad. I suspect the right thing to do lies somewhere in between. But, in the meantime we can continue reading this verbose agenda driven nonsense, hidden under the guise of disease "concern".



Wow, talk about grasping at straws when you have run out of reasonable rebuttals.!

You do realize that yearling buck dispersal is a totally different subject then the concentration of doe family groups, right?


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> Taking ten does a year off of 800 acres does not exactly equate to the Katyn Forest of deer hunting. We harvest 2 -3 does a year off of my 40 and which has a third of the density of your property.


The harvest of 200 does was accomplished on less than half of that 800 acre zone. No idea how many were killed by neighboring hunters. The 800 acre zone was cited as there was only one waterhole within it (not on my property) and two viable bedding areas (one of which was on my property, one elsewhere). Now there's an abundance of both and substantially less concentration of deer activity.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> The harvest of 200 does was accomplished on less than half of that 800 acre zone. No idea how many were killed by neighboring hunters. The 800 acre zone was cited as there was only one waterhold within it (not on my property) and two viable bedding areas (one of which was on my property, one elsewhere). Now there's an abundance of both.


So how do you think your habitat efforts have impacted the deer on your property compared to before you owned it? Lower density, lower recruitment rates? Fewer bucks, fewer does? a less healthy herd? Or no change at all?


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Munsterlndr said:


> Wow, talk about grasping at straws when you have run out of reasonable rebuttals.!
> 
> You do realize that yearling buck dispersal is a totally different subject then the concentration of doe family groups, right?


Munster, I realize a lot of things. I realize your agenda driven nonsense hasn't changed for many years, and won't anytime soon. I realize that you have wasted an unfathomable amount of time and energy into misguided "concerns". Energy, knowledge, intelligence, and valuable time that could have truly made a difference but was instead spent on compiling facts that fit your agenda, and disregarding all others. But most of all, I realize any amount of rebuttals will never change you.....Regardless of who it's from, and certainly not from me.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

field-n-feathers said:


> You know exactly why you asked the question.


Yes, biologists = more than 1. 

You never backed it up with more than 1, with QDMA ties.

It seems you let your intolerance of others, with a difference of opinion, get the better of you again.

As it led you to believe that it was acceptable to unfairly lob accusations and insults at another MSF member.

Maybe it's a just Mich. thing. That intolerance. I don't know. I don't really care. But it's there. JMO





field-n-feathers said:


> *You've been spewing your opinions as fact for a good number of years Munster. Many times arguing with well known and respected biologists.*
> 
> Could you please share your qualifications, including graduate degree field, with the readers of this forum. I think they all would appreciate knowing your area of expertise which you've based your statements upon. *Freshman-level Google research and real estate don't count as qualifications. *
> 
> Thank you.


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

Wintrrun, i owe you an apology. Sorry for my comments, i understand how they make me look like a jerk. My family and friends love creating deer habitat/food plots. I want everyone on this site to have a successful hunting season, it doesnt matter to me what people shoot or dont shoot. This doe is bedded down in the backyard that we purposely planted white clover in. These moments are why i create habitat. Sorry again
View media item 114736


wintrrun said:


> Explains a lot.
> Glad to see the clan picked up another member.
> Why not join the CWD management co-op?


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> Can you name anybody, not affiliated with QDMA?......


If you're looking for a professional wildlife biologist with a specialty in whitetailed deer that has no affiliation whatsoever with QDMA, you've got your work cut out for you. Practically everyone who's anyone in whitetail biology is either a QDMA member, has attended events sponsored by QDMA or QDMA officers, or had some other connection with the organization. Just the way it is when you're the most respected deer organization on earth.


----------



## Rut-N-Strut (Apr 8, 2001)

farmlegend said:


> If you're looking for a professional wildlife biologist with a specialty in whitetailed deer that has no affiliation whatsoever with QDMA, you've got your work cut out for you. Practically everyone who's anyone in whitetail biology is either a QDMA member, has attended events sponsored by QDMA or QDMA officers, or had some other connection with the organization. Just the way it is when you're the most respected deer organization on earth.


And I respect and admire the National Chapter of QDMA.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Rut-N-Strut said:


> And I respect and admire the National Chapter of QDMA.


If you respect and admire them, why did you ask the question to begin with? Sorry if I read more into it than there was. My disdain for Jim should not have been misdirected towards you. For that, I apologize.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

farmlegend said:


> The harvest of 200 does was accomplished on less than half of that 800 acre zone. No idea how many were killed by neighboring hunters. The 800 acre zone was cited as there was only one waterhole within it (not on my property) and two viable bedding areas (one of which was on my property, one elsewhere). Now there's an abundance of both and substantially less concentration of deer activity.


For what it's worth, my father and I had hunted the 130 acre "Walters Farm" that bordered FL's property to the north since 1988-2005. He is correct in saying water was scarce in most years. We also new where the second largest bedding area was in the area and thank god we had access to it because it produced some nice bucks. We also to took 4-6 does every year for 17 years off this farm. I have literally seen groups of 50 or more deer come off his property in past years. He definitely has a Garden of Eden deer factory and should reep all the benefits from his hard work over the years. I still have access to a neighboring farm so I'm still somewhat familiar with his work..His projects with deer dispersal is dead on..One disclaimer here: Even though we are land neighbors in the same area, I don't think I'm on Fl's Xmas card list...lol


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Munsterlndr said:


> So how do you think your habitat efforts have impacted the deer on your property compared to before you owned it? Lower density, lower recruitment rates? Fewer bucks, fewer does? a less healthy herd? Or no change at all?


Before venturing into the rigor which I employ to estimate my deer density, sex ratios, and recruitment rates over time, how about you consider the question which I posed, since I asked it first: when managing deer in a region where disease is a "concern", is it better to have few deer focal points (concentrated deer activity), or many deer focal points (less concentrated deer activity)? 

Answering "both" will require some splaining. It sure seems to me that you have attempted to have it both ways on this matter.

Also, as deer eat, sleep, and defecate, zero focal points is pretty well impossible, with or without human activity.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

wintrrun said:


> Arizona has to be phucking hot!
> The lack of Arizona Sportsman is obvious.
> Why not go out and check da water hole?
> Same ol FnF, playing the horse crap card from the APr game.
> ...


Poignant. (Insert sarcastic smiley here)


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

farmlegend said:


> Before venturing into the rigor which I employ to estimate my deer density, sex ratios, and recruitment rates over time, how about you consider the question which I posed, since I asked it first: when managing deer in a region where disease is a "concern", is it better to have few deer focal points (concentrated deer activity), or many deer focal points (less concentrated deer activity)?
> 
> Answering "both" will require some splaining. It sure seems to me that you have attempted to have it both ways on this matter.
> 
> Also, as deer eat, sleep, and defecate, zero focal points is pretty well impossible, with or without human activity.


As I've used the term in this thread, a focal point creates a concentration of deer not found under normal browsing conditions, resulting in the mixing of non-family group deer. Using that definition, fewer focal points would be preferable, allowing deer to observe the normal social isolation that is found between individual family groups.

My experience has been that food creates focal points, put out a buffet either with or without roots and you will attract deer and that multiple family groups will take advantage of that bonanza of plenty that you are providing them.

You seem to be claiming that individual family groups will show fidelity to individual plots and that increasing the number of plots will result in exclusive use, thus reducing the potential for "cross-contamination" between non-family member deer.

Could be but I kind of doubt it. Deer are opportunistic feeders and having seen radio collar studies that show the range of movement and distances that deer will travel to feed, I suspect that multiple family groups will be using multiple plots and that cross contamination will still occur.

I'd further point out that my comments about the potential danger of food plots as focal points is a generalization based on what I perceive as the typical food plot application in this state. Properties like yours or Bio's can hardly be held up as typical, I'd say they are the exception not the rule. The typical food plotter is unlikely to be working with 800 or even 200 acres and is not planting thousands of trees, putting in ponds, restoring hanging fens or planting dozens of different types and sizes of plots. Most of them are throwing down a bag of rye on 20 acres in a small kill plot for the purpose of luring a deer into range. So the idea that planting a series of plots may have a mitigating impact on the spread of disease may sound like a great idea but the reality of the situation is that the vast majority of plotters are never going to go to those efforts or make the size and type of investment needed to achieve that goal.

But those same plotters will be quick to seize on your arguments to say "See, plots pose no threat, so we can keep doing things the way we have before, regardless of CWD. It's Ok because Bio or FL said so."


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

So if the DNR doesn't change their food plotting policy in areas of disease, does that mean they didn't because Bio or FL said so? Or, would it be because they know more than the "Real Estate" guy turned wanna be deer biologist? Just an honest inquiry.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

field-n-feathers said:


> Poignant. (Insert sarcastic smiley here)


Same ol same old.
When you plan on actually participating in the eradication of cwd in Michigan let us all know?
Your theories and thoughts are just wasted space.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

Hillsdales Most Wanted said:


> Wintrrun, i owe you an apology. Sorry for my comments, i understand how they make me look like a jerk. My family and friends love creating deer habitat/food plots. I want everyone on this site to have a successful hunting season, it doesnt matter to me what people shoot or dont shoot. This doe is bedded down in the backyard that we purposely planted white clover in. These moments are why i create habitat. Sorry again
> View media item 114736


No apology necessary.
I share the same passion as you do and have shared similar experiences.
I believe we all do.
I just know it's all in jeopardy and I have to make decisions now based on the findings of cwd positive deer found in our wild herd.
I hope you and your family have a bountiful season.
We can talk till we are blue in the face about what is best but at the end of the day our actions dictate what we know is best.
Talking about what is best and actually showing up doing what is best is the Grand Canyon in this debate.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

wintrrun said:


> Same ol same old.
> When you plan on actually participating in the eradication of cwd in Michigan let us all know?
> Your theories and thoughts are just wasted space.


I've already stated what i would do multiple times. If you don't like it, that's your problem. If you don't agree, tough. 

You're apparently showing all of us that you know about as much of my Michigan land, plans, and participation in hunting activities there as you do AZ hunting.......which is jack squat.


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

field-n-feathers said:


> So if the DNR doesn't change their food plotting policy in areas of disease, does that mean they didn't because Bio or FL said so? Or, would it be because they know more than the "Real Estate" guy turned wanna be deer biologist? Just an honest inquiry.


Yawn...
Your just hear for the entertainment value it gives you.
poignant!


----------



## wintrrun (Jun 11, 2008)

field-n-feathers said:


> I've already stated what i would do multiple times. If you don't like it, that's your problem. You're apparently showing all of us that you know about as much of my Michigan land, plans, and participation in hunting activities there as you do AZ hunting.......which is jack squat.


I really could care less about some out of state resident who is dead set on belittling others when it fits there agenda.
Only time I see you post is when you are arguing with Munster or sucking up to the clan.
You actually still hunt Michigan and have a plan?
News to me.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

wintrrun said:


> I really could care less about some out of state resident who is dead set on belittling others when it fits there agenda.
> Only time I see you post is when you are arguing with Munster or sucking up to the clan.
> You actually still hunt Michigan and have a plan?
> News to me.


I'd be more than happy to take this to pm if you'd like.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Yea, didn't think so.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

field-n-feathers said:


> So if the DNR doesn't change their food plotting policy in areas of disease, does that mean they didn't because Bio or FL said so? Or, would it be because they know more than the "Real Estate" guy turned wanna be deer biologist? Just an honest inquiry.


The D.N.R.,Bio.F.L. and Munster all have a perspective and opinion.
Regardless of their ambitions all have something to offer worth at least musing over ,unless pickin scabs is more important to the recipient.
The D.N.R. has a food plot policy on private land to change?
If I don't agree with a perspective and dwell only on disagreement there's no sense in discussing anything further.
It's a diverse group facing C.W.D. in Mi..
We can go back to debating personal preferences of habitat and feed sources after we know our options from what is allowed this year and where. If it is allowed then so what, take it or leave it.
The thread is a proposal that all baiting be banned in the state.
I say no. Previous reduction and amount spread out was acceptable to me.
Plot's may not be considered bait by the D.N.R. but not encouraged on public land for multiple reasons. Fistfight's possibly among them. Private land a whole nuther subject but plots have not been a concern as much private land can be viewed as important habitat.
I've baited. Thriftily as I'm cheap, but also did not want deer feeding when I was not there. A small amount showed if they were around and often would be removed to another site when not hit which happens around here. Not a lot of deer and usually in the fall no problem for them to get around at night to hit a smorgasbord.
Hunted ag. fields and some deer Eden places too as well as unbaited, unplanted, reasonably unmolested places let grow/rest for decades with some logged.
All have some merit and reason's for their abundance or lack of deer..
As do the landowners and the D.N.R.'s management of state and management of federal lands have reason's and some merit..
Dwelling on those disagreed with won't change my hunting whether they are right or wrong.
React or respond to any new regulations in known C.W.D. zones,comply or complicate the effort.
Raggin on someone you disagree with on one issue and ignore the issue of a topic to do it?
Hinders any effort on looking at all facets of the topic.
I know that without a degree; from the experience of having done it myself.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Waif, opinions are like a holes. Everyone has one, some just stink more than others. 

With that said, your point was well understood and taken. The true point of these discussions takes place because of our love of the resource. Some discussions do get more heated than is neccessary. I am just as guilty, if not more than, the next. Regardless of where I call "home", I have a vested interest in Michigan and the great natural resources it has to offer. I suspect others who post on these topics do as well.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

I hope if we cross trails with someone we disagree with out in the field we can smile and still enjoy it.
A local I disagree with on a couple points was trespassing on land I hunt, as usual. I left him be.
The retired landowner winters elsewhere and does not want to hear about it.
Enough complaints and he would probably say the heck with it and everyone stay out. Leaving the trespassers hunting it...
An old situation with the caretaker intervening more than once.
I caught him,(the local trespasser) in the summer elsewhere and vehemently disagreed. Warned him to not be caught on my property(a convenient short cut for him year round)Too bad.
Az. huh?
I get pictures in the mail from Green Valley and newspaper clippings from someone who lives there depicting wildlife. All I saw in Az. was lizards, a seagull in a sandstorm and desert.
I won't make it there but would like to see White Mountain.
It is developed but was a wildlife stronghold a long time.
Mi. is down to small windows of it's former glory.
With great effort a great hunt is possible consistently,no guarantees of a choice specimen, but still possible.
As long as I can still have the privilege to try I don't want to lose support by isolating all other hunters.
Even if I'd not rather see them where I'm hunting.
So bait or plots or public or private or who kills what has to be tempered with, accck, a degree of tolerance.
Not always easy to smile about; no. But not worth losing any alliance over either.
Who else we got to say let hunting continue if it came down to a vote?


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Waif said:


> I hope if we cross trails with someone we disagree with out in the field we can smile and still enjoy it.
> A local I disagree with on a couple points was trespassing on land I hunt, as usual. I left him be.
> The retired landowner winters elsewhere and does not want to hear about it.
> Enough complaints and he would probably say the heck with it and everyone stay out. Leaving the trespassers hunting it...
> ...


Yes, AZ is much different than Michigan for sure. Contrary to what some may think, there's much more to this state than desert. I've spent a ton of time getting to know many areas quite well. Partly for the scenery, but mainly in search of great hunting spots. I've found some great out of the way areas that are nothing like the stereotypical desert that some people imagine it to be. 

Couple pics on a few recent trips.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

Few other pics near one of my spots in Unit 20A.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

field-n-feathers said:


> So what? More proof that his statements are not QDMA driven fodder as implied in previous posts here.


I agree in relation to BSK, he is willing to step out of the box and ponder the difficult questions. Probably my favorite deer bio of all.

The last thing we need right now is agenda driven bio's/management. Especially those in charge of the dnr right now.


----------



## field-n-feathers (Oct 20, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> I agree in relation to BSK, he is willing to step out of the box and ponder the difficult questions. Probably my favorite deer bio of all.
> 
> The last thing we need right now is agenda driven bio's/management. Especially those in charge of the dnr right now.


I agree. He has my respect too.


----------



## Musket (May 11, 2009)

Seems like we have two different type of posters on the subject. One who posts for the love of the animal and one who posts for the love of the people.


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

sniper said:


> *For what it's worth, my father and I had hunted the 130 acre "Walters Farm" that bordered FL's property to the north since 1988-2005. *He is correct in saying water was scarce in most years. We also new where the second largest bedding area was in the area and thank god we had access to it because it produced some nice bucks. We also to took 4-6 does every year for 17 years off this farm. I have literally seen groups of 50 or more deer come off his property in past years. He definitely has a Garden of Eden deer factory and should reep all the benefits from his hard work over the years. I still have access to a neighboring farm so I'm still somewhat familiar with his work..His projects with deer dispersal is dead on..One disclaimer here: Even though we are land neighbors in the same area, I don't think I'm on Fl's Xmas card list...lol


If your dad is still kicking, you two may want to go get checked for second hand cigar smoke inhalation.

The state land to north holds some nice deer also, great chunk of property for a two man drive now and then.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

sniper said:


> For what it's worth, my father and I had hunted the 130 acre "Walters Farm" that bordered FL's property to the north since 1988-2005. He is correct in saying water was scarce in most years. We also new where the second largest bedding area was in the area and thank god we had access to it because it produced some nice bucks. We also to took 4-6 does every year for 17 years off this farm. I have literally seen groups of 50 or more deer come off his property in past years. He definitely has a Garden of Eden deer factory and should reep all the benefits from his hard work over the years. I still have access to a neighboring farm so I'm still somewhat familiar with his work..His projects with deer dispersal is dead on..One disclaimer here: Even though we are land neighbors in the same area, I don't think I'm on Fl's Xmas card list...lol


So you are the neighbor(s) that FL has been whining about all these years?

Fence row sitters, young buck killers, etc.


----------



## Walt Donaldson (Feb 23, 2015)

Can we ban this thread?


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

Walt Donaldson said:


> Can we ban this thread?


That is like cutting a large worm in half. You then have two smaller worms, eventually they grow and you have two large worms, then you cut them in half.......................................


----------



## RMH (Jan 17, 2009)

Walt Donaldson said:


> Can we ban this thread?


Or you could just skip on by it.......:idea:


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Doesn't increase the population? That depends on a number of factors. In some cases, increasing the amount of available food and making habitat improvements most certainly increases the carrying capacity and increases population density. That is not even debate-able. It depends on what the limiting factors are in a given area. In some areas, food is a limiting factor and increasing the amount of food will increase both carrying capacity and recruitment rates, leading to increases in density. In the SLP, food is not usually a limiting factor, nor is water, so increasing the amount of food will probably not result in higher densities. Cover is certainly a limiting factor in the SLP, so habitat improvements can impact densities in that regard.


Wow! You are actually coming up with some accurate information. 

Now that you openly admit that increasing carrying capacity does not cause an increase in population in areas where carrying capacity is not a limiting factor, you may be ready to take the next step and recognize that in such areas, the more discrete food and water sources there are, the more the deer will distribute and the lower the liklihood they will congregate.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> His name is Bryan.
> 
> You want to give us an example instead of just throwing out a name? I agree with about 95% of what Bryan says. About the only time I can remember disagreeing with him was about ten years ago during a discussion about genetic traits, where he posited the theory that deer avoiding cars might be an example of an evolutionary trait. I disagreed then and do now, that car avoidance in deer is a heritable trait, passed down genetically, I don't think there is any evidence to support that idea and he didn't provide any. Now a fawn might certainly learn to be wary around a road after watching their mom but that's a learned behavior, not a genetically inherited one. The only other difference of opinion with Bryan that I can think of had to do with the potential benefits of an older buck age structure. He opined that there may be some but that they have just not been identified. Sure there MAY be some but until they HAVE been identified there is no basis for assuming that they exist. Pretty minor difference of opinion but please feel free to provide others that I don't remember.


BSK_ on the QDMA Forums, replying to Munsterlndr, 5-31-2012:

Munsterlndr: "We will have to disagree on that point."

BSK_ : "I am beginning to realize why we will have to disagree about everything."

I wish BSK still posted on the forums.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Herd reduction is certainly one way of reducing the spread but maybe not the most effective way. Generally the problem with herd reduction is that efforts focus on the cohort that has the lowest incidence of the disease. Hunters will only kill so many deer until they reach a thresh-hold where harvest drops off. A more effective way of stopping the spread then general herd reduction, is targeted harvest. Taking out entire family groups in the immediate area where positive deer are found and intensively targeting button bucks, yearling bucks and bucks in general, is a more effective approach and is less likely to cause harvest overload, where hunters start worrying that too many deer have been killed and back off on harvesting any more.


You don't *reduce* herds by targeting bucks. You *grow* herds by targeting bucks. You *reduce* herds by targeting does.


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

I'm utterly amazed, the food plot zealots continue the debate that more food plots means better for disease theory and congregation. DEER congregate AT food sources, no matter the size..they congregate at the best locations within the fields, whether its the small section that has great shade for them in hot summer in the evenings, the best part of the field that clover is growing, the most secure part of the field, etc..etc.. THEY CONGREGATE at food sources!! More food sources means more deer, more healthier deer, more deer more deer.....its the reason SLP has more deer than NLP, more deer than the UP....its the reason Menominee county in the UP has more deer than Roscommon county....more food sources...MORE DEER!!! It also attracts more deer to your property, its the reason you planted food plots, to attract MORE deer!!

Bio, love the water source theory you try and push in Michigan too....yea you live in Michigan, water sources are NOT the problem for Mi deer! I realize some make a pond/water source and put a camera out over it and got a picture of a deer and proclaim it works!!! More water sources are not needed to helpo spread out congregated deer at a water source in Mi...maybe Texas!!


----------



## beer and nuts (Jan 2, 2001)

> You don't *reduce* herds by targeting bucks. You *grow* herds by targeting bucks. You *reduce* herds by targeting does.


 That is not the way I read Munster's post. You misread and took it out of context.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Fewer focal points that concentrate deer while feeding occur in unimproved landscapes.


And by your logic, or lack thereof, fewer focal areas means fewer deer will focus on those fewer focal points.

More focal areas would mean higher concentrations of deer on the focal areas.

"And the band played on..."


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> *I very rarely disagree with well known and respected biologists, *with exception of Dr. Deer, who tends to spout a fair amount of bs that is unsupported by sound science. See Brassica Toxicity and killing prions with bleach.


Interesting. If you were to actually hang out with real scientists you would find out that they often disagree with each other. That back and forth argument is what drives science.

But you agree with all of them (at least the "well known" ones), even though they disagree with each other?

Amusing at best.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

field-n-feathers said:


> In certain instances I suppose it does. I don't feel that someone such as Bryan would erroneously stake his reputation/achievements on QDMA fodder. I think it's more a case of you dismissing his opinion due to you not agreeing with QDMA principals, rather than his message. If that wasn't the case, you wouldn't have asked me the question to begin with.


Funny Bryan is foisted off as a QDMA guy. He has not posted on the forums for years, does not participate in QDMA meetings or events. I talked with him recently and I know that he consciously does not participate with QDMA for his own personal reasons. 

When people make assumptions, well, you know...


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> While disease may be present where deer are present, it's kind of taken for granted in these discussions that we are talking about two serious diseases, bTB and CWD and they are not present "wherever there are deer". If someone is outside of the bTB zone or the CWD zone, put out all the minerals you want, as long as it is legal, I have no problem with it. My concern is transmission of those two particular diseases, as they have the potential to have a very negative impact on hunting in Michigan. Any food plot that I plant or bait that I use, is only used a long way from any known cases of either of those diseases. If disease is found near where I own property, both of those activities would cease immediately, as I would hope would be the case with anyone who cares about the resource.


You are so fascinating as you weave your convoluted theories.

You are for baiting, which has been cited by several scholars as being associated with the outbreak of TB in the deer herd of the NELP, as long as it is occurring outside a disease zone, yet you are rabidly opposed to regulations that increase buck age structure (something that may putatively increase disease risk) in areas where there is no disease.


----------



## Walt Donaldson (Feb 23, 2015)

RMH said:


> Or you could just skip on by it.......:idea:


Or you could change you Avatar? 

It's the bad car wreck theory I think but, your advice is right on.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

RMH said:


> If your dad is still kicking, you two may want to go get checked for second hand cigar smoke inhalation.
> 
> The state land to north holds some nice deer also, great chunk of property for a two man drive now and then.


Lol...Yes now that u mentioned it, we did have a smell of Havana periodically with a southerly breeze..My Dad's house kiddy cornered that chunk of state land and I hunted it often. About 10 years ago we spotted the biggest buck we'd ever seen in MI and he called that state land home. I got set up on him once in early bow season and a 60 yard shot at dark wasn't gonna happen...We called him "glow stick" because his rack was so white you literally could see him in the dark. My Dad moved, but I still bow hunt the land every fall on rainy days. No one is ever there.


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> So in your scenario where each family group spends a short amount of time in a small plot before heading for a larger destination plot in which they co-mingle with other family groups, how is the potential for contact between non-family group deer reduced?
> 
> They are still concentrating in the larger destination plot for the majority of their feeding time, no?
> 
> ...


C does not exist in most of the SLP. It does not exist in the CWD hot zone or anywhere in the surrounding areas.

Deer move to more open fields at night, where they spread out on those fields and feed, keeping as much separation among doe families as possible. I expect to see, and have documented for years, very little usage of my property by deer at night. They are in the neighboring ag fields at night. And nothing I do will change that, short of providing large feeding areas of several acres, which I recommend small property owners never, ever do if they are situated in ag areas. But what I can do is reduce the overlap of deer families on smaller food and water sources by providing more food and water sources in transitional areas between food and water.

The B component is the most powerful thing to avoid contact among doe families. Providing a multitude of small feeding areas and a multitude of bedding areas dramatically reduces the overlap of doe families on smaller food sources. Same thing with water. The more sources there are, the less overlap of usage there will be.

It would make no sense for those of us who are managing deer properties to design them so the deer all congregate in one place. We are trying to achieve the exact opposite of that. We want the doe families distributed so that the bucks have to move to inspect them. And it works. You can greatly decrease commingling of doe families by providing more small food and water sources.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

bioactive said:


> I talked with him recently and I know that he consciously does not participate with QDMA for his own personal reasons.
> .


Because he found they were presumptuous tools, would be my guess.


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

FREEPOP said:


> So you are the neighbor(s) that FL has been whining about all these years?
> 
> Fence row sitters, young buck killers, etc.


Ahhh swing and miss again there FP!..Your probably horrific at wiffle ball..Nice try though..We had 130 acres of hunting bliss and another 40 across the road to the north so there was no need to line sit. And yes we shot some smaller bucks back then but that was long before we had a clue!


----------



## bioactive (Oct 30, 2005)

Munsterlndr said:


> Here is a picture that illustrates aggregation or concentration. Same number of deer, same size property in both cases, one group is concentrated yet there are not more of them in the finite space.


Here, I fixed it for ya.


----------



## FREEPOP (Apr 11, 2002)

sniper said:


> And yes we shot some smaller bucks back then but that was long before we had a clue!


Doesn't sound like a miss to me at all.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> BSK_ on the QDMA Forums, replying to Munsterlndr, 5-31-2012:
> 
> Munsterlndr: "We will have to disagree on that point."
> 
> ...


Instead of doing your usual cut and paste, why don't you post a link to the entire thread and let the reader so the whole discussion in context?


----------



## sniper (Sep 2, 2005)

FREEPOP said:


> Doesn't sound like a miss to me at all.


Lol...Honesty will get you know where I guess...Actually the last 3 words of my previous statement bout sums it up..


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> You don't *reduce* herds by targeting bucks. You *grow* herds by targeting bucks. You *reduce* herds by targeting does.


Your reading comprehension either seems to be lacking or you are intentionally misrepresenting what I said. I didn't say that you reduce herds by targeting bucks, I said that targeting bucks and entire doe family groups was a more effective approach to limiting the spread of disease then general herd reduction, which would primarily target does instead of bucks. The DNR and most biologists that understand anything about CWD happen to agree with me on that point. You, on the other hand, come up with ridiculous ideas like putting yearling bucks in the CZ off limits from harvest during hunting season.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> You are so fascinating as you weave your convoluted theories.
> 
> You are for baiting, which has been cited by several scholars as being associated with the outbreak of TB in the deer herd of the NELP, as long as it is occurring outside a disease zone, yet you are rabidly opposed to regulations that increase buck age structure (something that may putatively increase disease risk) in areas where there is no disease.


Once again, you feel the need to misrepresent what I've said. Apparently you can only rebut strawmen. 

So are you saying that you are rabidly for regulations that increase the buck age structure, which may increase disease risk, in areas where there is no disease?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> And by your logic, or lack thereof, fewer focal areas means fewer deer will focus on those fewer focal points.
> 
> More focal areas would mean higher concentrations of deer on the focal areas.
> 
> "And the band played on..."



Word salad gibberish. Your band only seems to know one note, that being misrepresenting what the other person says so that you can knock down another strawman.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

bioactive said:


> Here, I fixed it for ya.
> 
> 
> View attachment 186135


 LoL, there was nothing to fix because you apparently didn't understand the illustration. I never claimed that deer exhibit behavior resembling maximized spatial distribution, the fact is that they don't. That illustration was originally used to rebut the claims made by some that planting a ten acre plot versus a one acre plot would result in less concentration since the deer would have ten times the amount of space to spread out in. That "logic" ignores the facts of herbivore aggregation, in which deer and other herbivores tend to cluster in small groups when feeding in the open, regardless of how big the field is. It was used in this case to contradict F&F's claim that a concentrations of deer in a finite space had to result in increased population density, which is false. 

But keep trying to fix what is not broken, your efforts are usually good for a laugh.


----------



## Waif (Oct 27, 2013)

field-n-feathers said:


> Few other pics near one of my spots in Unit 20A.


Nice.
Az. settle the baiting issue?
They had a proposed ban with a solid argument.
It relates to Mi. as the state was one of the few left still allowing it.
I'm not sure how the hunting culture there view it's use but imagine there was regular use in places.
Outside of transmission risks baiting in reasonably small quantities does not trouble me. 
Mass piles or same stump type though, I can believe risks exist.
http://www.azgfd.gov/inside_azgfd/rules/rulemaking_baitingProhibit.shtml


----------



## Hillsdales Most Wanted (Jul 17, 2015)

bioactive said:


> C does not exist in most of the SLP. It does not exist in the CWD hot zone or anywhere in the surrounding areas.
> 
> Deer move to more open fields at night, where they spread out on those fields and feed, keeping as much separation among doe families as possible. I expect to see, and have documented for years, very little usage of my property by deer at night. They are in the neighboring ag fields at night. And nothing I do will change that, short of providing large feeding areas of several acres, which I recommend small property owners never, ever do if they are situated in ag areas. But what I can do is reduce the overlap of deer families on smaller food and water sources by providing more food and water sources in transitional areas between food and water.
> 
> ...


Bio, are u describing my property or yours ? Everything u have said sounds just like mine. Lots of small food plots, several water sources, spread out doe families, day time usage, buck movement, and i have trail cams to prove they aren't on my property at night they are in the big fields then come back to mine in the morning. Im glad u said u would never recommend a smaller land owner creating a larger multiple acre food source, i have been contemplating this. Whats your theory on why not plant multiple acre food source ??


----------

