# Feeding deer associated with a human and deer illnesses



## Bob S (Mar 8, 2000)

ARTICLE

Friday, July 10, 2009
By Becky Gillette

You might call it the Bambi syndrome. Well-intentioned people who love deer think they are helping them by setting out food, usually corn. That practice is known as "recreational feeding." Corn is also sometimes used to bait deer to make it easy for hunters to kill them. 
Jay Gaylen, owner of Hart's Family Center in Eureka Springs, said they sell quite a bit of deer corn. 

"In the wintertime we sell more than in the summertime because there are more people trying to help the deer out in the winter," Gaylen said. 

But feeding the deer does more harm than good. It can lead to deer overpopulation that can wreak havoc to the ecosystem. And it can kill the deer people are trying to help. 

Deer feeding is definitely involved with a number of diseases, said Kevin Keel, DVM, PhD, Dipl. ACVP, a wildlife pathologist with the SE Cooperative Wildlife Disease Study in the College of Veterinary Medicine at the University of Georgia. 

*Bovine TB* 

"Bovine tuberculosis (TB) is a prime example," Keel said. "It is caused by a bacterium called Mycobacterium bovis. This bacterium is similar to the agent of human tuberculosis and can cause a generally milder disease in humans. It originally spilled over into deer from cattle, but has since been maintained in deer in a corner of Michigan. The occurrence of bovine tuberculosis in deer in Michigan is directly correlated with the practice of baiting deer. The more deer are fed, the greater the number with bovine TB." 

Another good example is bovine brucellosis in and around Yellowstone National Park. Like bovine tuberculosis, this is a cattle disease that originally spread to elk and later to bison. In the Greater Yellowstone Area, elk and bison are artificially fed in the winter. 

"This has led to high populations and a dense, focal accumulation of animals in the winter," Keel said. "This also happens to be the time when elk with brucellosis exhibit one of the principal signs of the disease, abortions. The aborted fetuses and placentas are heavily laden with the Brucella abortus, the bacteria causing the disease. These can contaminate the feed grounds so that animals may be infected while feeding, but other elk are often curious and will lick or nibble at the aborted material. This is a situation that greatly encourages transmission of the disease and the feed grounds certainly contribute to persistence of this disease in the Greater Yellowstone Area." 

*Chronic Wasting Disease* 

Another concern is Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD), which is the mad cow variant in deer. CWD is of double concern because there are worries that eating deer meat contaminated with CWD could cause human illness. With deer meat an important part of their diet for many people, this is a huge concern. 

There is an organization called Arkansas Hunters Feeding the Hungry that last year harvested 1,000 deer that were sent to food banks and other charitable organizations. The Arkansas Game and Fish Commission says one deer can provide meals for between 50 and 100 people. 

Keel said the practice of feeding deer is a concern with CWD because it is likely spread in a fecal-oral manner and persists in the environment. 

CWD -- a tough study 

"However, CWD is such a slowly progressive disease that it is much harder to investigate and we haven't been able to show the tight correlations with feeding that we've demonstrated with bovine tuberculosis and bovine brucellosis," Keel said. 

The closest CWD has been found to Northwest Arkansas is western Kansas and northern Illinois. 

Interstate transportation of captive deer and elk has been stopped in most states. 

Other problems with feeding of deer include the syndrome of hair loss in white-tailed deer. 

"We've also seen a number of deer with unusual swelling of the muzzle that seems to be associated with feeding," Keel said. 

Another concern is, in some areas, the deer population has been linked to the prevalence of Lyme disease in people. 

"This is not because deer carry the agent, but because they are an essential host in the life cycle of the tick that transmits the Lyme disease agent," Keel said. "However, this is a very complicated issue and the density of rodents, the intermediate hosts of the ticks, also has to be taken into account. Some studies found that tick density increased with deer density at a broad scale but others report that deer density is a poor predictor of tick abundance, probably due to the effect of rodent populations. Complete removal of deer is associated with elimination of the ticks, but that is not a realistic option unless you live on a small island." 

*The lone-star tick* 

Current evidence indicates a definite association between deer density and human diseases transmitted by the lone-star tick. Keel said white-tailed deer are the principal host for all life stages of the lone star tick and the abundance of the ticks and deer are tightly linked. Several human diseases (human monocytotropic ehrlichiosis, /Ehrlichia ewingii/ehrlichiosis and southern tick-associated rash illnesses) are known to be transmitted by lone star ticks or, in the case of southern tick-associated rash illness, are suspected to be transmitted by lone star ticks. 

"These diseases were not recognized until the 1980s and 1990s and their emergence is likely associated with increasing populations of white-tailed deer," Keel said. "I should also add that I do a great deal of work on deer health and generally assess density dependent problems. Higher deer populations contribute not only to some infectious diseases, but also to greater parasite burdens that can impact deer health. Lungworms and parasites of the gastrointestinal tract are mostly responsible and are higher in areas of high deer density. These parasites can cause significant problems in deer particularly in younger animals."


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

The negative consequences described in this article are the result of concentrating deer unnaturally and increasing and sustaining high deer densities. All of which are potential impacts resulting from supplemental feeding in any form, including the planting of food plot crops intended specifically for wildlife consumption. If your property is located in areas where known communicable diseases are present that cervids are susceptible to, or if the regional deer density is above the stated goals, do the biologically responsible thing and refrain from feeding deer, whether in the form of baiting, recreational viewing, supplemental winter feeding or food plots.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

FYI from the Mississippi Wildlife Federation.........

http://www.mswildlife.org/baiting/docs/Differences between food plots and baiting.pdf


Differences between planted and managed food plots and the baiting and artificial
feeding of game species of wildlife.

Food plots or other agricultural crops left standing in the field:
1. Offer yearround
or seasonal access and availability to deer and other free &#8211;
ranging wildlife on a 24hour
per day basis where they can feed at will rather tan
just when the feeder trips or bait is available.
2. Are large enough that deer or other wildlife species are not concentrated in such a
small area that the density promotes disease transmission or interspecific
competition among species.
3. Do not promote unhealthy food production or availability like feeders or bait piles
which can get wet, moldy and toxin impacted.
4. Do not have a negative impact on nontarget
species like corn or other grain
which might be infected with aflatoxin, nor do food plots or agricultural crops left
in the field create an attraction for predators in an unhealthy density like feeders
or baiting.
5. Food plots add other benefits such as providing openings for improved turkey and
other bird and small mammal brood range and nesting sites whereas baiting or
feeding does not provide any such benefits.
6. Money spent for the preparation, planting and management of food plots for use
by wildlife provides for habitat improvements such as openings for brood range,
or it may substitute needed seasonal forage for a deficiency of mast producing
trees in the are, or provide good nesting cover, plus most food plots can be
managed to improve wildlife habitat for several years without significant
management costs.
7. Food plots and agricultural crops left standing do not significantly alter wildlife
behavior or cause dependency or increased habituation to people.
8. The nonhunting
public has rarely if ever objected to the planting and
management of food plots for the benefit of wildlife.
9. Food plots have been demonstrated to be costeffective
in improving wildlife
habitat without increasing the likelihood of increased wildlife health problems
10. Surveys of hunters and landowners have not identified any opposition by or
private landowners to the planting or management of food plots as to the ethics of
improving habitat for wildlife, in contrast to the majority of hunters and
landowners who oppose baiting.
11. It is recognized that many people do hunt in or adjacent to food plots and that is a
choice they make for themselves, however, freeranging
wildlife may or may not
frequent food plots during daylight hours when people are hunting because other
natural foods may be preferred and more beneficial to their needs, or because
wildlife associate these openings with people activity.
Baiting and Artificial Feeding creates:
1. A situation that requires someone to supply bait or feed on a regular basis which
is significantly more expensive than preparing and managing food plots, or other
habitat enhancement and if baiting and feeding are not done regularly the animals
that have been fed may be short or natural food in the area because they have
eaten or damaged preferred species in the baited of feeding area.
2. Significant opportunities, and ideal environment to hasten the spread or
transmission of diseases such as hemorrhagic disease (bluetongue), tuberculosis,
CWD, and a whole host of other diseases to deer as well as to nontarget
species
such as turkeys, and they attract other species such as raccoons which serve as
reservoirs for other diseases such as rabies.
3. A situation where nontarget
wildlife species such as song birds, predators, and
other preferred game species such as turkeys may be drawn in to feed on the bait
or feed which if infected with aflatoxin (40% of deer corn examined for sale had
illegal levels of aflatoxin and was prohibited from being sold for animal food) or
other toxins or fungus may cause death or serious health problems to these nontarget
species. In addition, much of the bait or feed disseminated is likely to be
eaten by species other than what the bait is being provided for.
4. Funds expended for baiting and feeding are not improving habitat in any way, and
in fact are degrading the habitat by causing too many animals to frequent the
immediate area and may exacerbate human/wildlife interaction and vehicle/deer
collisions if near highways.
5. Baiting and artificial feeding pose a significant problem for nontarget
wildlife
species, and is likely to encourage and exacerbate poaching problems and
encourage the taking of wildlife outofseason.
In fact there are cases on record
where hunters in Florida and Louisiana hunting over deer bait have illegally taken
Threatened subspecies of black bear that were attracted to the beer feed (usually
corn).
6. Baiting and artificial feeding if made legal will discourage many landowners from
practicing and expending limited resources on wildlife habitat management and
enhancement because even if they don&#8217;t bait or feed themselves but their neighbor
does it, the neighbor is likely to cause a change in wildlife behavior especially if
he baits and feeds primarily during the hunting season.
7. Baiting and artificial feeding significantly alters wildlife behavior patterns and
creates a dependency on someone putting out the bait and feed which also
increases wildlife habituation to people which is not in the best interest of
wildlife.
8. Survey after survey has indicated that the nonhunting
public perceives baiting
and artificial feeding of wildlife or the purposes of hunting as nonethical
and not
as a &#8220;fair chase&#8221; method of hunting, and their attitude is likely to change to
oppose hunting if they perceive hunting over bait as giving unfair advantage to
hunters.
9. Baiting and artificial feeding has been proven in case after case of not being costeffective
aside from the fact that it increases the potential for epidemic disease
transmission and negative impacts on wildlife health.
10. Every survey, state, region, or national that I am aware of that has polled hunters
about whether they think baiting or feeding should be legal, has resulted in the
great majority of hunters opposing making it legal to hunt over bait or feed, and
this is certainly true in Mississippi.
11. Baiting and artificial feeding unnaturally lure/attracts wildlife to localized areas
and to hunt over such area is not perceived as fair chase hunting by the majority
of hunters or the general public. Is teaching our children or grandchildren to hunt
by shooting an animal over a bait or feed pile the hunting legacy we want to leave
future generations?
12. Most scientific nutritional studies have shown that corn which is the choice of
most people who bait and feed deer is not the most nutritional diet for wild deer,
nor is a healthy diet that meets the complete nutritional requirements of deer.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tom Morang said:


> Food plots or other agricultural crops left standing in the field:
> 1. Offer yearround
> or seasonal access and availability to deer and other free 
> ranging wildlife on a 24hour
> ...


Communicable disease can be spread through contamination of soil and/or food, both of which can occur equally in food plot/wildlife plantings as it can in bait situations. In some cases the limited duration of food availability actually decreases the potential for incidental contact between deer, unlike plots, where deer are likely to congregate for extended periods due to the increased amount of forage available.



Tom Morang said:


> 2. Are large enough that deer or other wildlife species are not concentrated in such a small area that the density promotes disease transmission or interspecific competition among species.


This is based on the misconception that larger areas equate to greater spatial distribution of feeding deer. Studies have shown that is not the case, deer tend to cluster for defensive purposes while feeding. The actual space in a food plot utilized by multiple deer when feeding in a group tends to be similar in size to bait spread over legal sq. footage. Studies have also shown that density at baited sites is sometimes less then at non-baited control sites.



Tom Morang said:


> 3. Do not promote unhealthy food production or availability like feeders or bait piles which can get wet, moldy and toxin impacted.


 Bait used in limited quantities is unlikely to last long enough before being consumed for this to be much of a problem. If using timed feeders, precautions have to be taken to insure that the bait does not get contaminated. In the real world, I think this concern is a little blown out of proportion. When baiting was legal in Michigan, how often did you hear of cervid health problems resulting from contaminated bait? The only problems that I'm ever aware of hearing about were the result of periodic winter supplemental feeding with corn that caused problems do to corn toxicity but that is a late winter issue.



Tom Morang said:


> 4. Do not have a negative impact on nontarget
> species like corn or other grain which might be infected with aflatoxin, nor do food plots or agricultural crops left in the field create an attraction for predators in an unhealthy density like feeders or baiting.


Again, in the real world there has been very little evidence of toxicity being a problem commonly associated with baiting in Michigan. As far as predators, the correlation has to do with increased density, not food and food plots that contribute to increased density are just as likely to contribute to increased predator populations. Food plots also create edges in tree canopies that have been shown to cause increased raptor predation of non-target wildlife. 


Tom Morang said:


> 5. Food plots add other benefits such as providing openings for improved turkey and other bird and small mammal brood range and nesting sites whereas baiting or feeding does not provide any such benefits.


They also provide circumstances that result in increased Raptor predation of small mammals, turkeys and other species. Baiting does not cause this.



Tom Morang said:


> 6. Money spent for the preparation, planting and management of food plots for use by wildlife provides for habitat improvements such as openings for brood range, or it may substitute needed seasonal forage for a deficiency of mast producing trees in the are, or provide good nesting cover, plus most food plots can be managed to improve wildlife habitat for several years without significant
> management costs.


 At the cost of creating increased deer densities, which in turn can cause over-browsing of native plants & habitat and can create dependence on non-natural food sources. Increased populations can cause increased predator populations and increase in deer tick populations, which can in turn contribute to elevated levels of lyme disease in humans. 


Tom Morang said:


> 7. Food plots and agricultural crops left standing do not significantly alter wildlife behavior or cause dependency or increased habituation to people.


Anybody that believes this one has either never hunted on properties where food plots are planted or seen the reactions of deer to baiting. :lol: Of course food plots alter deer behavior, that's why most hunters plant them, because they make it easier for deer to be patterned and increase a hunters chance of success. Let's at least be honest here folks. I see the same deer in the same plots all fall long and anyone that has deer cams placed over food plots will know that deer quickly become conditioned to feeding in them. 


Tom Morang said:


> 8. The non hunting public has rarely if ever objected to the planting and management of food plots for the benefit of wildlife.


The non-hunting public has rarely objected to using bait either, unless it's waived under their nose in a survey. Trophy hunting is the only current hunting related practice that seems to get non-hunters panties in a bunch. When baiting was legal in Michigan there were no widespread calls among the non-hunting public to stop the practice. For that matter, huge numbers of non-hunters practiced supplemental feeding for viewing purposes prior to the ban. The same public that views baiting as unethical for fair chase reasons will say the same thing about hunters using a heated shooting shack over a corn field. 


Tom Morang said:


> 9. Food plots have been demonstrated to be cost effective
> in improving wildlife habitat without increasing the likelihood of increased wildlife health problems.


Wildlife habitat can be improved much more cost effectively by timbering and other practices then it can by the planting of food plots. It's been demonstrated that increased deer densities cause a correlation with increased levels of disease. There is no question that food plots often increase deer densities and concentrate deer, so to say that food plots don't increase the likelihood of increased wildlife health problems is simply not factual.


Tom Morang said:


> 10. Surveys of hunters and landowners have not identified any opposition by or private landowners to the planting or management of food plots as to the ethics of improving habitat for wildlife, in contrast to the majority of hunters and landowners who oppose baiting.


This Author has obviously not visited MS. :lol: There is plenty of opposition to food plots among hunters in Michigan and our own NRC struck down an attempt to expand food plots onto public land. Michigan studies have shown that hunters are pretty equally split for and against baiting. Studies also show that large majority of bow hunters used bait when legal and a majority of all hunters also used it, so to say that a majority of hunters oppose bait is somewhat disingenuous. 


Tom Morang said:


> 11. It is recognized that many people do hunt in or adjacent to food plots and that is a choice they make for themselves, however, free ranging wildlife may or may not frequent food plots during daylight hours when people are hunting because other natural foods may be preferred and more beneficial to their needs, or because
> wildlife associate these openings with people activity.


The same is true with bait. Using bait is not a guarantee that you will see game, it simply improves the likelihood, as do planting food plots. It's the same for either method.



Tom Morang said:


> Baiting and Artificial Feeding creates:
> 1. A situation that requires someone to supply bait or feed on a regular basis which is significantly more expensive than preparing and managing food plots, or other habitat enhancement and if baiting and feeding are not done regularly the animals that have been fed may be short or natural food in the area because they have
> eaten or damaged preferred species in the baited of feeding area.


I get the feeling that some of these articles are written by people who have never planted food plots or used bait.  Food plots are waaaay more expensive then baiting is. Bait is used for a short duration, often only a couple of weeks. 2 gallons of carrots a day for 14 days is about $20 worth of bait. Plant food plots and you are talking thousands of dollars in equipment, as well as tens if not hundreds of hours devoted to preparation, planting and maintaining them. This one is laughable. :lol:



Tom Morang said:


> 2. Significant opportunities, and ideal environment to hasten the spread or transmission of diseases such as hemorrhagic disease (bluetongue), tuberculosis, CWD, and a whole host of other diseases to deer as well as to nontarget species such as turkeys, and they attract other species such as raccoons which serve as reservoirs for other diseases such as rabies.


Which also happens with food plots. It's the concentration of the deer, not what they are eating that is the problem.


Tom Morang said:


> 3. A situation where nontarget wildlife species such as song birds, predators, and other preferred game species such as turkeys may be drawn in to feed on the bait or feed which if infected with aflatoxin (40% of deer corn examined for sale had illegal levels of aflatoxin and was prohibited from being sold for animal food) or other toxins or fungus may cause death or serious health problems to these nontarget
> species. In addition, much of the bait or feed disseminated is likely to be eaten by species other than what the bait is being provided for.


 There are lots of other foods used for bait, the problems noted here are specific to corn used in feeders. Carrots, apples , beets, etc. do not get aflatoxin. 


Tom Morang said:


> 4. Funds expended for baiting and feeding are not improving habitat in any way, and in fact are degrading the habitat by causing too many animals to frequent the immediate area and may exacerbate human/wildlife interaction and vehicle/deer collisions if near highways.


Increased density causes problems with human/wildlife interaction, whether the density is being caused by bait or food plots. How about leaving it up to hunters to decide how they want to spend their cash instead of mandating it? 


Tom Morang said:


> 5. Baiting and artificial feeding pose a significant problem for nontarget
> wildlife species, and is likely to encourage and exacerbate poaching problems and encourage the taking of wildlife outofseason.
> In fact there are cases on record where hunters in Florida and Louisiana hunting over deer bait have illegally taken Threatened subspecies of black bear that were attracted to the beer feed (usually
> corn).


This one is really a stretch. Ban a legitimate practice because some people poach? The same argument could be used to ban owning firearms. 


Tom Morang said:


> 6. Baiting and artificial feeding if made legal will discourage many landowners from practicing and expending limited resources on wildlife habitat management and enhancement because even if they dont bait or feed themselves but their neighbor does it, the neighbor is likely to cause a change in wildlife behavior especially if he baits and feeds primarily during the hunting season.


 So what? Leave it up to the individual to decide what they want to do. Defensive food plotting will also happen now that baiting is banned, that is not a legitimate reason to stop a practice.



Tom Morang said:


> 7. Baiting and artificial feeding significantly alters wildlife behavior patterns and creates a dependency on someone putting out the bait and feed which also increases wildlife habituation to people which is not in the best interest of wildlife.


As do the planting of food plots. Funny, deer get pretty used to me rolling along on a tractor and it does not seem to spook them very badly. 



Tom Morang said:


> 8. Survey after survey has indicated that the nonhunting
> public perceives baiting and artificial feeding of wildlife or the purposes of hunting as nonethical and not as a fair chase method of hunting, and their attitude is likely to change to oppose hunting if they perceive hunting over bait as giving unfair advantage to
> hunters.


As mentioned, the non-hunting public would be just as upset by a picture of a hunter sitting in a heated shack over a corn field. If we allow our hunting practices to be dictated by the non-hunting public we might as well just give up. 


Tom Morang said:


> 9. Baiting and artificial feeding has been proven in case after case of not being costeffective aside from the fact that it increases the potential for epidemic disease transmission and negative impacts on wildlife health.


Baloney, baiting is a lot more cost effective then food plots and injects a substantial amount of money into the economy, as well. If disease is not present, baiting will not contribute to it's spread.


Tom Morang said:


> 10. Every survey, state, region, or national that I am aware of that has polled hunters about whether they think baiting or feeding should be legal, has resulted in the great majority of hunters opposing making it legal to hunt over bait or feed, and this is certainly true in Mississippi.


This guy has obviously not visited Michigan or Wisconsin or other states where baiting is legal. A majority of bow hunters in each state used bait when legal. 



Tom Morang said:


> 11. Baiting and artificial feeding unnaturally lure/attracts wildlife to localized areas and to hunt over such area is not perceived as fair chase hunting by the majority of hunters or the general public. Is teaching our children or grandchildren to hunt by shooting an animal over a bait or feed pile the hunting legacy we want to leave future generations?


The author is repeating himself, hint of bias perhaps? :lol: See above for response to this concern


Tom Morang said:


> 12. Most scientific nutritional studies have shown that corn which is the choice of most people who bait and feed deer is not the most nutritional diet for wild deer, nor is a healthy diet that meets the complete nutritional requirements of deer.


There are a lot of other things used for bait then corn. The author is obviously used to baiting as practiced in the South with spin feeders. He should maybe restrict his opinions to areas that he is familiar with.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

I don't make them up Munster, I just post em.


http://www.uwsp.edu/admin/grantSupport/studentResearch/volumeiii/Wilke.htm


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Chronic Wasting Disease and the Science in support of the Ban on Baiting and Feeding Deer.

Timothy R. Van Deelen Ph.D.
Wisconsin DNR Research


Summary
Reliable science provides support for a ban of baiting and feeding of white-tailed deer to reduce disease risks for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). Peer-reviewed research papers published in reputable scientific journals indicate the following:

· CWD is transmitted laterally (live diseased deer infect other deer)
· Deer can get CWD by ingesting something contaminated with the disease prion
· CWD prions may be shed in feces and saliva
· Disease course and symptoms indicate high potential for transmission where deer are concentrated
· Evidence from captive situations indicates that deer can get CWD from highly contaminated environments.
· Baiting and Feeding causes unnatural concentration of deer
· Reduction of contact through a ban on baiting and feeding is likely very important to eradicating or containing a CWD outbreak.
· Baiting and feeding continues to put Wisconsins deer herd at risk to other serious diseases

In addition, experts in CWD, wildlife disease and deer nutrition support bans on baiting and feeding as part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent and/or manage CWD.

Under a baiting and feeding ban, disease outbreaks are more likely to be smaller in scale and more apt to be contained or eliminated. With the long CWD incubation period and other factors that make discovery of a new outbreak difficult, an outbreak that is already widespread when detected because of baiting and feeding may not be able to be contained or eliminated.

This document provides details and explicit links to the supporting science.


Chronic Wasting Disease and the Science behind the Ban on Baiting and Feeding Deer.

Some critics claim that there is no scientific support for the judgment that resulted in the ban. This is simply untrue. In this document, I review some of the scientific evidence in support of the baiting and feeding ban.

The science in support of the ban on baiting and feeding is strong and comes from a number of diverse scientific sub-disciplines (veterinary medicine, wildlife ecology, biochemistry, physiology, etc.). Consequently, there is no single comprehensive study or paper that, by itself, demonstrates the CWD-related effects of baiting and feeding of wild deer (good or bad). Evaluating the science relative to baiting and feeding requires integration of scientific evidence from several different sub-disciplines.

The quality of scientific evidence is an issue for some critics who claim that other science or other experts fail to support the ban. It is also an issue in trying to reach an objective scientific judgment. In keeping with established scientific practice, I consider articles published in reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific literature to be of the highest quality. Peer-review insures that articles have been rigorously evaluated and endorsed by qualified specialists. A secondary level of scientific rigor is the unpublished opinion or unpublished research of recognized experts working on the topic of interest. An example of this would be the opinion or unpublished research on CWD transmission from investigators who have established their expertise through peer-reviewed publication on other CWD-related topics. A very distant third level of quality is the unpublished opinion of recognized experts working on distantly related topics. Again, scientific expertise is demonstrated by frequent publication in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.


Read the rest if you wish by clicking on the link

What is your backround as an expert in this issue Munster?



http://www.cwd-info.org/index.php/fuseaction/news.detail/ID/e7b231188ec9953b07f4710de0b333c1


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Food plots put deer in the same scenario (close contact feeding) as baiting. You could replace baiting with food plots in that article and the facts would remain the same. Especially when the plotting is done on small acreage in poor habitat areas.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Ranger Ray said:


> Food plots put deer in the same scenario (close contact feeding) as baiting. You could replace baiting with food plots in that article and the facts would remain the same. Especially when the plotting is done on small acreage in poor habitat areas.


Possibly?
Maybe?
Could be?
If?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tom Morang said:


> What is your backround as an expert in this issue Munster?


:lol: So we're back to the old "I don't like what your saying so instead of responding substantively, I'll challenge your credentials" ploy. Pretty lame, Tom. 

I've quoted numerous peer reviewed and scientifically credible articles in previous posts on this subject, if you want I can post the laundry list again. 

The fact of the matter is that there is very little substantive research that has been done on the spread of disease resulting from either the use of bait or food plots. Van Deelan, while a credible researcher, went into his baiting study with a strong preconceived idea of what the results would be and then interpreted the results of his study in a manner that supported his original hypothesis, while disregarding some of his results that did not support his preconceived idea of how deer would react to bait. An example is when some of the control sites used in his study showed a higher incidence of use than two of the baited test sites, which was at odds with his preconceived notion that baited sites would inevitably concentrate deer more than the unbaited control sites. He explains this away as being something of an anomaly, due to unrelated factors. How convenient to dispose of results which contradict your theory in such a manner. 

There is also an old adage about not being able to see the forest for the trees, which is an accurate description of what some Academics do when insisting on basing opinions solely on peer reviewed material. 

A PhD is not a requirement when simply observing the reality of the situation and applying a little common sense. Regardless of the absence of peer reviewed studies documenting the fact, it's obvious to anyone with half a brain and who approaches the issue without a previous bias, that food plots can concentrate deer in a similar manner as baiting does and that providing tens of thousands of pounds of additional highly palatable forage can sustain and increase resident deer densities over and above levels that existed prior to planting supplemental food plots. It ain't rocket science, old buddy. :lol:













































Sorry this one is so blurry, It was darn near pitch dark outside, I had to slow the shutter speed down considerably to get anything except black. There are actually 4 deer in that group (one behind the tree) feeding in my WW plot at dusk. Picture taken from my elevated blind


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tom Morang said:


> Possibly?
> Maybe?
> Could be?
> If?


The conclusion reached by Dr. Schmitt in his paper "Bovine Tuberculosis in free ranging white tailed deer in Michigan."

_"A combination of environmental (high deer density and poor quality habitat) and management related factors (extensive supplemental feeding) *may* be responsible for this epizootic."_

So does his use of the word _may_ invalidate the hypothesis? Your really reaching here Tom.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Munster:

Just for the record I never said I didn't like what you are saying. I merely questioned your credentials pertaining to this issue. I think that is a fair question is it not?

I don't have any credentials but do try to seek the truth without letting my ego get in the way.

For the good of this debate lets read some more, and from some other perspectives.

Breaking Through The Food Plot Mentality

http://www.csrees.usda.gov/nea/nre/pdfs/fish_moorman2.pdf


----------



## pkuptruck007 (Apr 17, 2007)

Munsterlndr said:


> Communicable disease can be spread through contamination of soil and/or food, both of which can occur equally in food plot/wildlife plantings as it can in bait situations. In some cases the limited duration of food availability actually decreases the potential for incidental contact between deer, unlike plots, where deer are likely to congregate for extended periods due to the increased amount of forage available.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 


Could not have said it better! 

Another thing to mention is... with the Bovine TB in northern-west Lower....
With the banning of bait, and the absolute decimation ( early on) of the doe 
numbers in this area has had, for the most part.... no significant effect on the 
TB... if you believe the numbers reported. 

So, that being said... I think the research siting the cause of the spread and 
such to baiting and concentrating deer un-naturally... is suspect. I still think it is 
a valid response... and even better management tool, but I dont thinkn it has had
the "well researched and documented" effect of eliminating the TB.

If it were true, (baiting = more TB) then the TB issue would be ... over.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Or you could of just responded: Consequently, there is no single comprehensive study or paper that, by itself, demonstrates the CWD-related effects of food plotting and feeding of wild deer (good or bad).


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Tom Morang said:


> Munster:
> 
> Just for the record I never said I didn't like what you are saying. I merely questioned your credentials pertaining to this issue. I think that is a fair question is it not?
> 
> ...


I invite you to read this.


----------



## Ranger Ray (Mar 2, 2003)

Looks like a good comprehensive article on food plotting and habitat management. Whats your point?


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Ranger Ray said:


> Looks like a good comprehensive article on food plotting and habitat management. Whats your point?


My point is to educate.

http://fw.ky.gov/foodplot.asp


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Both interesting articles which I have previously quoted from in other threads. Note that they are not peer reviewed so would be deemed unacceptable by some as legitimate information to base an opinion on. 

Here is another one you might enjoy.

http://www.ces.purdue.edu/extmedia/FNR/FNR-194.pdf

Keep seeking the truth, it'll set you free.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Several more that you might enjoy. 

http://files.dnr.state.mn.us/publications/wildlife/research2007/10_food_plots.pdf

http://ckwri.tamuk.edu/fileadmin/user_upload/docs/bulletins/bulletin3.pdf

http://www.afrc.uamont.edu/foodplots/introduction.htm


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Still no proof as to which practice is more likely to spread disease?

Which practice can be most easily controlled or stopped to aid in the prevention of a disease spreading?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Now after having read the articles that Tom posted and the ones that I linked to above, read this one by Kip Adams of QDMA. Note that while Kips article is informative, you will find no reference to some of the potentially negative aspects of food plots or some of the myths associated with them, that were mentioned in some of the other articles. Unlike the various State extension services, QDMA never met a food plot that it didn't like. This subtle difference in attitude is also evidenced in the attitudes espoused by many of the employees of our DNR, which incidentally has a close working relationship with QDMA, among other special interest groups. This is not intended as a criticism of QDMA but merely to point out that there is another side to the issue which is largely ignored by some of the key people in our DNR who make decisions based to a large degree on the input that they receive from organizations like QDMA and MUCC, which rarely present an all encompassing, unbiased view of a particular issue. 

http://www.bowhunter.com/feature_articles/qdm_070904/


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Tom Morang said:


> Still no proof as to which practice is more likely to spread disease?
> 
> Which practice can be most easily controlled or stopped to aid in the prevention of a disease spreading?


First of all, you will never "prove" that either practice will spread disease, that's not how science works. With further research you may come up with some more concrete supporting evidence that supports your hypothesis but it's always possible that more compelling future evidence will come to light that will contradict your theory. I'm sure Pescadero would be happy to elaborate on this topic. 

Secondly, there is an almost total absence of any direct studies that examine the issue of either bait or food plots contributing to the spread of disease, so we are not in any kind of a position to even make reasonable guesses about which is "more likely" to contribute to the spread of disease. The research to date has to do primarily with the survivability of TB bacteria on different substrates and the existence of prions in saliva and other bodily fluids and the potential contamination of soil as a result. Van Deelans study concerned the varying impact on utilization of broadcast bait, with different amounts and methods of bait being used but did nothing to compare the results to the utilization of food plots. Fullbright studied the spatial distribution of deer feeding in food plots, which provides some limited information regarding the feeding patterns of deer in plots but had no comparisons to the patterns evidenced by deer feeding at bait sites. Little other substantive research has been done on the issue in either case.

Obviously baiting is easier to control and regulate. That does not, however, mean that it should not be acknowledged that food plots pose many of the same potential risks and that a campaign to educate the public about the potentially negative aspects of food plots should not be considered as part of a comprehensive disease management policy by the DNR.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Munster says:

"Obviously baiting is easier to control and regulate. That does not, however, mean that it should not be acknowledged that food plots pose many of the same potential risks and that a campaign to educate the public about the potentially negative aspects of food plots should not be considered as part of a comprehensive disease management policy by the DNR."

Agreed.

Munster says:

"First of all, you will never "prove" that either practice will spread disease, that's not how science works. With further research you may come up with some more concrete supporting evidence that supports your hypothesis but it's always possible that more compelling future evidence will come to light that will contradict your theory. I'm sure Pescadero would be happy to elaborate on this topic."

Agreed. Science is what you make it? LOL


----------

