# Is the CWD plan BS



## Biggsy

I apolagize for bringing up this controversial topic again. I really have a problem with the CWD plan and how it has been enacted. For one the plan was wrote over 5 years ago and assumed a deer with CWD would walk accross our border or be within 50 miles of it. It was not written to address the problem if CWD started in a captive cervid facility. So were talking about a plan that is over 5 years old and not written for michigans current CWD problem. Second, the plan which I have read and will quote here says "Approxima tely 300 free-ranging deer &#8805;18 months of age will be killed expeditiously in the surveillance zone and tested for CWD. Efforts will be made to ensure the sample is geographically representative. This sample would provide sufficient statistical power to be 95% confident of detecting the disease if it is present in the area at a prevalence of at least 1%" If we are indeed following this plan, these 300 free-ranging deer have already been expeditiously extracted and tested, which I believe they have. My question is where are the results. This is Darn important to all of us, so where are the results. If no CWD was found then we can be 95% confident that it is not in our free-ranging deer herd. When will we get the results? If CWD is not in our free ranging herd let everyone know so we can be at ease and we can relax the plan. If it is found to be in the herd lets get a group similar to the ones that wrote the original CWD plan and update the darn plan for our exact circumstance not something that 5 years ago they guessed would happen. 
I think we need answers so the appropiate action that needs to be taken, can and will be done per our unique circumstances.


----------



## uptracker

Taking 500 deer out of the area....I think the DNR really just wants us to see what QDM could do in a southern county!:lol:

Who knows...personally, I feel they have something up their sleeve, but I think it's for the better. Everyone always seems to think the DNR is out to get us in some way, I really don't think that is true.


----------



## lpslacker

It's B.S.


----------



## buckhunter14

I live in the CWD "hotzone". I am able to speak with a lot of people who rank high in Michigan Deer Hunting, or know people of such rank. These people are public officers, taxidermists, and CO's. From what I can gather from these people, and this is MY opinion, the CWD plan that is set in place for Kent County right now is crap.

As for the CWD plan, crap too!


----------



## BigDog25

buckhunter14 said:


> I live in the CWD "hotzone". I am able to speak with a lot of people who rank high in Michigan Deer Hunting, or know people of such rank. These people are public officers, taxidermists, and CO's. From what I can gather from these people, and this is MY opinion, the CWD plan that is set in place for Kent County right now is crap.
> 
> As for the CWD plan, crap too!


What High ranking Officials do you talk to?? I live in the Zone as well....


----------



## captjimtc

I too think it was a huge over reaction that shouldn't have been put in place. Way too broad of an area and now it looks like even the deer in the "Hot Zone" are safe at this point but who's to say with the little data the DNR has. I doubt the US government would quarantine an entire state sized parcel of land even if the Ebola virus was found in 10 people in one area.


----------



## scott kavanaugh

buckhunter14 said:


> I live in the CWD "hotzone". I am able to speak with a lot of people who rank high in Michigan Deer Hunting, or know people of such rank. These people are public officers, taxidermists, and CO's. From what I can gather from these people, and this is MY opinion, the CWD plan that is set in place for Kent County right now is crap.
> 
> As for the CWD plan, crap too!


Dude, This isn't the army or a small country, their just deer. You sound like you've been partialy subjected to the QDMr's logic or something. How do people rank high in deer hunting?

I know your not talking to clute or the DNR's flow chart, because they would be trying to sell you this as (the only way).

But I will give the people your talking to credit for knowing crap when they smell it.


----------



## Munsterlndr

I would not say that the CWD plan is B.S. but I would say that it is a bureaucratic plan that was devised by committee. If you have any experience with working on committee's that are not led by a person with vision, you will know that the conclusions that are reached in that kind of a setting are usually watered down compromises that are more concerned with building "Consensus" then finding the best way to deal with a particular issue. It's one of the reasons that Government solutions are usually ineffective when compared to those reached in private industry. In private industry, you can cut through the crap and not have to worry about pleasing each particular special interest group that is attempting to promote an agenda. This plan was put together by a committee made up of people from the DNR, the Dept. of Agriculture and from other government agencies. Certain individuals involved had clear agenda's regarding baiting. Is it any real surprise that the plan that was developed and then shelved for 6 years was based more on pleasing particular agenda driven concerns then actually coming up with the best means of preventing the spread of CWD? 

It's kind of amazing that such a plan was not updated on an annual basis, to take into account changes that occurred both in the makeup of the resource and changes that had occurred within the captive cervid industry. How many business's could have formulated a business strategy 6 years ago and then take it off the shelf, blow the dust off it and go ahead and implement it 6 years later and expect it to be as viable, as if it had just been formulated? It's simply a joke to say "Well, we trust the Government and this is the best plan that could have been put forward." 

Is the plan BS? No, not totally. Is it the best plan that could have been formulated? Nope, not by a long shot. Is it reasonable to criticize the DNR and the Ag. Dept for using a 6 year old, unmodified plan? In the immortal words of Sarah Palin, "You Betcha!". Regardless of whether it was well intentioned, if the plan that has been implemented actually does more harm than good, sportsmen have an obligation to stand up and point out it's deficiencies.


----------



## Pinefarm

Huh?

Biggsy said...

*For one the plan was wrote over 5 years ago and assumed a deer with CWD would walk accross our border or be within 50 miles of it. It was not written to address the problem if CWD started in a captive cervid facility.*

Why do you assume that? MDNR has always been gravely concerned that captive farms would likely be the source. You won't find a biologist I know of that doesn't hate these farms, but MDNR has no authority to ban them.

I look at the CWD plan and see it specifically written for deer farms. The 50 mile part was the add on in case it "walked in".


----------



## Clear Cut

Only because the same response should have occurred the day they discovered TB in Michigan's deer herd. It appears that the CWD plan is Michigan's way of playing catch-up.


----------



## twodogsphil

While the Response Plan may not be bs, the states failure to fully implement it and its sometimes inaccurate and ofttimes sensationalized communication efforts have negatively impacted public perceptions of the MDNR. And in the case of many well-read hunters the agency's credibilioty has been further eroded. Below are two excerpts from the Response Plan.

"MICHIGAN SURVEILLANCE AND RESPONSE PLAN FOR
CHRONIC WASTING DISEASE OF FREE-RANGING AND
PRIVATELY-OWNED/CAPTIVE CERVIDS"

"B. For PO/captive cervid herds. The MDA CWD response efforts will entail:
4. CWD diagnosed in PO/captive cervid herd
a. The state veterinarian shall conduct a complete epidemiological investigation to determine the specific cause, source of 
disease, population exposed, and population infected."

Although, this is a MDA responsibility, to date, the cause or source of the disease has not been identified.

"C. Education/Outreach/Communications on Response Activities &#8211; In the event of a CWD confirmation in Michigan, communication will play a critical role. The state&#8217;s handling of the situation in the first 24 hours and the ensuing 10 days will have a lasting impact on public perception of the state&#8217;s ability to address and control the disease. The MDNR and MDA will designate limited knowledgeable spokespeople and work through agency Public Information Officers (PIOs) to provide the most up-to-date information to the media, public, and other non-governmental entities."

Regarding this element of the Response Plan, MDNR has truly dropped the ball. What especially comes to mind two points: first there are the inaccurate statements as to the character and cooperativness of the facilty owner and second there are the highly exaggerated statements regarding the potential impacts of the disease. Especially amazing are the quotes attributed to Dr. Steve Schmitt, MDNR's TB Veterinarian.


----------



## Direwolfe

I feel much better knowing that half a dozen people, probably without a true science degree among them, have now pronounced the plan "BS". I know I can rely on their expertise as they are after all, Michigan deer hunters. No matter where in Michigan, or how they hunt them, hunters have the same reaction to any ( even just proposed) change in the game regulations or laws: "this is going to screw my way of hunting and what are YOU going to do about fixing it".

Is this the best plan? Probably not. But boys and girls, wake up. We hunters are just a tiny percentage of the interest groups involved here. The human health threat is real. (If there's no health threat why do they say its ok for tb to cook the meat thoroughly but any meat from a possible cwd carcass should be disposed of?). One of the biggest things we risk is losing having influence in the future of the game management. A big problem in Michigan that may not have been present in e.g. Colorado is herd density. When the politicians and people of Michigan learn the need for reducing deer density are they going to turn to the hunting community? Why should they? We hunters have proven ourselves totally incompetent in controling deer numbers. Instead we seek to maximize "hunting opportunity" to the long range detriment for the enviroment for anything other than deer (who's numbers under our watch keep going up). We keep hunting opportunity high to the point we tolerate disease (tb) in the herd. Would we do anything different here? If you look at these posts the answer is "no". We mention that only a small percentage of deer will die as the only effect of this disease. We treat the disease as something that shouldn't interfere with our hunting experience and hide behind "species barrier" and "no cases in humans definitively linked..."

Molly the mom will eventually connect three things: 
deer can deposit prions in the soil via excrement;
the prions can be picked up from ingesting soil; and
the experts said BSE could not jump the species barrier but were proven wrong.
When she does and knows thats all kids play in and ingest soil routinely is she going to keep the deer out of her backyard by listening to some hick who says "we hunters control the herd" and whose total background in deer biology is having gutted a few? Or is she going to be swayed by someone who promises control through non-hunting means in her neighborhood? This may not be the best plan but maybe its helping protect our hunting future.


----------



## Rustyaxecamp

Direwolfe said:


> I feel much better knowing that half a dozen people, probably without a true science degree among them, have now pronounced the plan "BS". I know I can rely on their expertise as they are after all, Michigan deer hunters. No matter where in Michigan, or how they hunt them, hunters have the same reaction to any ( even just proposed) change in the game regulations or laws: "this is going to screw my way of hunting and what are YOU going to do about fixing it".
> 
> Is this the best plan? Probably not. But boys and girls, wake up. We hunters are just a tiny percentage of the interest groups involved here. The human health threat is real. (If there's no health threat why do they say its ok for tb to cook the meat thoroughly but any meat from a possible cwd carcass should be disposed of?). One of the biggest things we risk is losing having influence in the future of the game management. A big problem in Michigan that may not have been present in e.g. Colorado is herd density. When the politicians and people of Michigan learn the need for reducing deer density are they going to turn to the hunting community? Why should they? We hunters have proven ourselves totally incompetent in controling deer numbers. Instead we seek to maximize "hunting opportunity" to the long range detriment for the enviroment for anything other than deer (who's numbers under our watch keep going up). We keep hunting opportunity high to the point we tolerate disease (tb) in the herd. Would we do anything different here? If you look at these posts the answer is "no". We mention that only a small percentage of deer will die as the only effect of this disease. We treat the disease as something that shouldn't interfere with our hunting experience and hide behind "species barrier" and "no cases in humans definitively linked..."
> 
> Molly the mom will eventually connect three things:
> deer can deposit prions in the soil via excrement;
> the prions can be picked up from ingesting soil; and
> the experts said BSE could not jump the species barrier but were proven wrong.
> When she does and knows thats all kids play in and ingest soil routinely is she going to keep the deer out of her backyard by listening to some hick who says "we hunters control the herd" and whose total background in deer biology is having gutted a few? Or is she going to be swayed by someone who promises control through non-hunting means in her neighborhood? This may not be the best plan but maybe its helping protect our hunting future.


Best post I have read on this entire site in a long time.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Direwolfe said:


> Is this the best plan? Probably not. But boys and girls, wake up. We hunters are just a tiny percentage of the interest groups involved here. The human health threat is real. (If there's no health threat why do they say its ok for tb to cook the meat thoroughly but any meat from a possible cwd carcass should be disposed of?). One of the biggest things we risk is losing having influence in the future of the game management. A big problem in Michigan that may not have been present in e.g. Colorado is herd density. When the politicians and people of Michigan learn the need for reducing deer density are they going to turn to the hunting community? Why should they? We hunters have proven ourselves totally incompetent in controling deer numbers. Instead we seek to maximize "hunting opportunity" to the long range detriment for the enviroment for anything other than deer (who's numbers under our watch keep going up). We keep hunting opportunity high to the point we tolerate disease (tb) in the herd. Would we do anything different here? If you look at these posts the answer is "no". We mention that only a small percentage of deer will die as the only effect of this disease. We treat the disease as something that shouldn't interfere with our hunting experience and hide behind "species barrier" and "no cases in humans definitively linked..."
> 
> Molly the mom will eventually connect three things:
> deer can deposit prions in the soil via excrement;
> the prions can be picked up from ingesting soil; and
> the experts said BSE could not jump the species barrier but were proven wrong.
> When she does and knows thats all kids play in and ingest soil routinely is she going to keep the deer out of her backyard by listening to some hick who says "we hunters control the herd" and whose total background in deer biology is having gutted a few? Or is she going to be swayed by someone who promises control through non-hunting means in her neighborhood? This may not be the best plan but maybe its helping protect our hunting future.


Sorry but I have to disagree with several points. First of all, when given the proper guidance through regulatory changes, Michigan hunters have done a damn fine job of reducing resident populations. They managed to reduce the population in area 452 by 50%. In Pennsylvania, after the institution of regulations that create an incentive, hunters reduced the overall population by approx. 50%, so you are wrong to blame hunters for our current grossly overpopulated deer herd. The blame for this lies squarely on the shoulders of the NRC/DNR. They are the ones who perpetuate a two buck tag system, even though it's been demonstrated in virtually every state that has it, that an OBR will help to encourage antlerless harvest and help keep populations under control. It was hunters, not the DNR that led that charge last year for meaningful regulatory reform and it was the NRC that shot it down. So don't hand me any BS about this being hunters fault. Provide the regulations to incentivize it and Michigan hunters will make the necessary reductions to the herd.

Secondly, there is simply no other method other than sport hunting that could effectively reduce deer populations by the required amount. Private snipers, etc. will only work on a very limited local basis. When considering the macro situation, hunting is the only effective means of controlling deer populations. But it requires leadership and well thought out management policy and we are sorely lacking that in this State. Until the DNR/NRC stops making management decisions based on how much revenue will be generated the population will continue to be out of control. 

Thirdly, the baiting ban is accomplishing little in terms of stopping the spread of CWD, if it contributes to a population increase , which creates the optimum conditions for the spread of the disease. Which scenario is more likely to contribute to the spread? A herd of one million deer that congregate in farm fields, in food plots and at bait piles or a herd of two million deer that congregate in farm fields, in food plots or at illegal bait piles? Do you actually think that banning baiting and increasing the number of deer in this State is the best way to go? It doesn't take a degree in science to recognize the stupidity of the second option when compared to the first. 

lastly, the threat of CWD jumping the species barrier is potentially there but is extremely remote. If Molly the mom is already allowing her toddler to eat deer crap, they are more likely to get sick from some existing parasitic disease then they are to be infected by CWD. If she feeds them Chicken Mcnuggets or a hamburger from a fast food place, they have a substantially higher risk of dieing from Salmonella or E Coli then they will ever have from CWD. Hysteria serves absolutely no purpose. Keep CWD in perspective, there are a hundred other diseases out there that pose a more compelling daily threat to you and your kids, yet you don't stay up all night worrying about whether you or your kid is going to come down with meningitis or hepatitis, despite the fact that those diseases kill thousands of people every year.


----------



## twodogsphil

If the CWD has not got outside the wire, than there probably is not a significant problem. However, if it is outside the wire in free-ranging deer consider this info from the MDNR website. 

"Scrapie, a similar disease of domestic sheep, has been around for over 250 years. First identified in the United States [Michigan] in 1947, it is possible that CWD was derived from scrapie. It is possible, though never proven, that deer came into contact with scrapie agent either on shared pastures or in captivity somewhere along the front range of the Rocky Mountains, where high levels of sheep grazing occurred in the early 1900s. In addition, in vitro models suggest there is less of a species barrier to interspecies TSE transmission between deer, elk, and sheep than between cervids and either cattle or humans."

So, we have still have scrapie after over 60 years of effort by the USDA and state Ag. Depts. to eradicate it.

Also on the MDNR website: "It may be possible that CWD is a spontaneous TSE that arose in deer in the wild or in captivity and has biological features promoting transmission to other deer and elk."

So, possibly CWD could spring up anywhere at anytime!


----------



## twodogsphil

If the CWD has not got outside the wire, than there probably is not a significant problem. However, if it is outside the wire in free-ranging deer consider this info from the MDNR website. 

Scrapie, a similar disease of domestic sheep, has been around for over 250 years. First identified in the United States [Michigan] in 1947, it is possible that CWD was derived from scrapie. It is possible, though never proven, that deer came into contact with scrapie agent either on shared pastures or in captivity somewhere along the front range of the Rocky Mountains, where high levels of sheep grazing occurred in the early 1900s. In addition, in vitro models suggest there is less of a species barrier to interspecies TSE transmission between deer, elk, and sheep than between cervids and either cattle or humans. 

It may be possible that CWD is a spontaneous TSE that arose in deer in the wild or in captivity and has biological features promoting transmission to other deer and elk.


----------



## Direwolfe

M-lndr,

Let me offer a few comments/ observations to your post:

"The DNR is to blame for population levels" (paraphrasing). This is a representative democracy. The public and especially hunters get the DNR they ask for. The DNR promotes high deer levels because most hunters ask for that (hunter surveys overwhelming correlate hunter satisfaction with seeing deer). Conversely consider the negative hunter reaction to many plans to reduce long term numbers. As for DNR funding, refer above to representative democracy. One test of your theory can also be looking at other states. The states in the eastern half of the US have different departments that correlate to Michigan's DNR. Despite varying management goals and methods all those states have one thing in common: constantly increasing deer populations. With unused "tags" in these states, including Michigan, it is seen that hunters do not cause any stabilization, much less reduction, in deer population. As for 452 I will only state that deer are still the keystone species in that enviroment. The cedars at my place aren't regenerating. Certainly the hunting community hasn't shown the will to displace the deer from this role in the enviroment.


"Sport hunting is the only way to reduce populations" (again paraphrasing). I agree that sport hunting shows better results than e.g. contraceptives or trap and release. If you look at the materials of the QDMA's "Living with Whitetailed Deer" program, more communities are opting for professional shooters because it gives the community a higher degree of control over numbers and methods. E.g. last week the NYT had an article about its use in one community out west (CO?). Again, while sport hunting has had sucess in some communities, overall it has not been effective in reducing deer levels and IMHO, it makes professional shooters a more viable alternative in the eyes of the general public. While contraceptives are not currently a viable option, any breakthrough in that technology may allow communities a preferable method over hunting especially give the population numbers where sport hunting is used. I agree shooters are viable only over a limited geographic area. Sport hunting hasn't been exactly the gold standard over that wider geographic area. 

"Baiting ban doesn't control spread" (paraphrasing). I see baiting as a great tool for helping control deer numbers. Sure, it doesn't draw trophy racks but it does a good job of drawing does out of cover, and those are the ones that have to be shot to control population. As you say, the problem involves both baiting and population control. The problem is baiting was overused for purposes of hunting that did not control population and still incurred the risk of disease spread by baiting. Simply put the 2 gallon limit did not seem to be honored. You pose a doubling of population without baiting, perhaps for dramatic effect. The effect of dropping baiting can be countered by better education on why population levels should be decreased. Who in the hunting community is doing this?Baiting does seem to be recognized as a disease vector by the scientists and is rightly stopped on that basis alone.


"Jumping the species barrier is extremely remote" . Agreed. I for one cannot intelligently calculate that % and don't lose sleep over it. Nonetheless is it better avoided? The scientists were wrong on BSE but only a few people died a miserable death, and sure their odds of dying from a different disease were higher. Cold comfort. Your examples all are ones that can be avoided and treated if contracted. Even more instructive is that for your examples, all are subject to laws and regulations intended to prevent/minimize their occurance. These were laws not proposed by the farmers or industry or restaurants, but mandated by pressure from a thousand Molly's. And no, Molly's kids don't eat deer dung. As you know, long after the deer and its dung are gone the infectious agent stays in the soil. And if you have kids you know they contact the soil.

So what's your reaction when the lawmakers react to Molly by redoing seasons along the following lines: Deer season will be the same length as usual, October 1 through January 31st. Except all weapons are allowed through the whole season. Not enough population reduction? Remove bag limits. Sound far fetched? Its been proposed in North Carolina by some who want to see the population controlled. I don't see it being implemented but it shows its not just hunters who have the ear of the DNR


----------



## Munsterlndr

Comments to your comments;

I would say that the driving force behind the DNR's failure to implement a more progressive license system is more based on pecuniary then popularity reasons. They are concerned about the negative financial consequences of eliminating the combo license. That fact was made abundantly clear to all of us who were engaged in the push last year to implement OBR. If a desire to boost hunter satisfaction was an overriding factor in establishing management policy, we would not be having this discussion about a baiting ban, since the move was one of the most unpopular acts that the state has undertaken in recent years.

Regarding the effectiveness of sport hunting in curbing rampant populations. You need look no further than Pennsylvania to see the impact that changes in management regulations can have in terms of effectively curbing deer populations through the use of sport hunting. If you took the basic framework of the PA plan, an OBR coupled with 4 pt. MARS and liberal antlerless permits, I can guarantee that the deer population would fall over the next 5 years in Michigan, with out having to employ one sharpshooter or use any contraceptives.

Attributing the lack of population control in the past to baiting is not legitimate. Regulations are the key to altering hunter behavior and in reducing the size of the herd. Baiting may help increase success rates and contribute in the short term to this but only with the proper regulations. 
Btw, I was not implying that a baiting ban would cause the deer herd to double. What I meant was that the current baiting ban is likely to push us across the two million deer threshhold next year. We are already at 1.84 million deer and have been adding around 100,000 deer a year for the past 5 years. I'm guessing the baiting ban will add around another 50-60,000 deer to that number. The one million deer number that I used in my example is what I believe we should be targeting for a statewide herd, in light of the potential threat of CWD. This would mean an approx. 50% reduction in the size of the herd, which is approx. what was accomplished in PA. It's slightly lower than the 1.2 Million deer target that the DNR announced in 2005 but that was prior to the advent of CWD. 1 million deer would still be double the approx. population that we had in 1975. 

While CWD is certainly not a great thing, I just don't see it as that much of a threat to deer hunting in the long run and I don't see it as much of a potential threat to humans. It might actually push the DNR to put in place some responsible management policies and while it's too bad that it takes a crisis to accomplish that, at least the herd will gain some benefit if those policies are enacted. A best case scenario would be that the threat is enough to get the leadership of the DNR to sit up and take notice and realize that we have to come to terms with the population issue instead of merely paying lip service to concerns about it. Hopefully CWD will be contained in the captive cervid population and the DNR will get off it's stump and take preventative measures to implement reform.

What would I say to extreme measures like an extended any weapon season? While it would not be my first choice and while I think that the goal could be accomplished in a more measured manner, if that is what it takes to get the population reduced, I'm in. I'd rather see that instead a bunch of hand wringing and double talk that ultimately does not get tthe job done. That's what we have seen for the past 3 years and the problem is not going away by itself.


----------



## swampbuck

There were no changes to the buck tags (obr) in area 452 during the depopulation effort. Simply unlimited antlerless tags and a public request for help by the dnr. I think the reason for the slp and west nlp overpopulation is because thats what the various forms of "deer managers" want, lots of deer.

["Provide the regulations to incentivize it and Michigan hunters will make the necessary reductions to the herd."]

That a very nice way of saying "they wont do it unless you force them too" that wasnt necessary in the NE LP, WONDER WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS


----------



## Munsterlndr

While removing the current cap on antlerless tags would help, unlike the NLP, the SLP does not have large areas of public land for hunters to utilize the unlimited antlerless tags on. As long as the two buck tag system continues, the SLP will continue to be over-populated. It might even take adding earn-a-buck to OBR and a 4 pt. MAR, to get things moving in the SLP, but some combination of regulations will eventually cause the overpopulation problem in the SLP to be solved. Heck, put a ban on shooting antlered deer in the SLP until the population reaches a certain level and watch how fast guys start shooting dozens of does on private land. In the NLP you could get away with simply eliminating the combo and increasing the number of antlerless tags. Earn-a-buck and MAR's would probably not be needed. 
Reducing deer populations is not an impossible task. Expecting hunters to do it on their own with no leadership and with no incentive from the DNR is about as likely as Jenny lowering your taxes.


----------



## Nick Adams

Munsterlndr said:


> Expecting hunters to do it on their own with no leadership and with no incentive from the DNR is about as likely as Jenny lowering your taxes.


It's not the hunters who are dropping the ball here, its the private landowners. The state's hunters have demonstrated that they are more than willing to reduce deer populations under the current system everywhere they have been provided with the tags and the access.

-na


----------



## blahblah

The whole situation is a mess. You can't win when you are trying to please everyone across the board. QDM folks, who are typically more experienced hunters and want to take quality deer. New hunters and meat hunters and a lot of the time those poor souls limited to hunting public land want to see deer period, so they are happy to have high populations and lots of does contrary to what QDM would say. 

DNR is stuck in that unfortunate situation of not only trying to keep all of those people happy but trying to survive on funds supplies almost exclusively from those two basic user groups. They have to worry about hunter recruitment going through the floor and trying to keep the funds coming in. 

Until there is a tax based funding solution it will be harder for the DNR to make all of their decisions based on science and not have it being weighed on in a different direction by other influences. Lets also face the fact that no two people or groups of people are ever going to agree what the "best" management strategy is because each will cater to a slightly different user group.

I think the quickest route to favorable results is to fight for tax based funding for the DNR and also to concentrate on recruiting new people into hunting, fishing and trapping.


----------



## Linda G.

yes, it is...I've looked at this in every possible positive way I can, and I still can't justify what they're doing. I don't bait, and I rarely deer hunt-when I do, it's for a doe,so I don't have an iron in this fire when it comes to deer. 

What I can't understand is why, if there is disease in the herd, wild or domestic, they don't CRANK up the tags...like they did when they first discovered TB...

If we don't have bait, then we're going to lose hunters-thousands of them. Those that do hunt will have a much harder time, particularly on public land, which is STILL where the majority of people hunt for deer, getting deer. 

So the deer population is going to go UP...more deer/vehicle accidents, more property damage, more crop damage, you name it...

NOT to mention that when you have more deer, the likelihood of disease is higher...

WHERE are the insurance companies in all of this????? Years ago, and still to this day, as far as I know, the insurance company lobbyists have, (or used to, at least) FAR more sway over the state of Michigan than anyone would ever like to admit. 

Now...let's add in a few other things...the captive deer farms have NOT been closed down. In fact, as we speak, they are daily releasing more and more of the quarantine. In another few weeks, things will be back to normal on all of the deer farms. 

And this winter, because those animals are technically domestic animals, those deer farm owners will be allowed to feed those animals...

But our wild deer go hungry. They're not where the disease is known to be located, but they go hungry. 

If we have a really bad winter, particularly in the NLP, we will have dead deer. Most deer no longer have any inate instinct to yard in the winter, and even if they do, we no longer have deer yards. The habitat is, for the most part, gone...and we have millions of deer out there that have headed into someone's back yard to spend the winter every winter of their lives. There will be all kinds of people watching these deer helplessly, all winter...pray for a very short and easy winter. 

The forecasters say it won't be. 

Those that do yard up, or try to, will be...guess what...nose to nose...isn't that what we're trying to AVOID?? Or have they forgotten about the possibililty of TB? I think they have...what's really absurd is that there is no conclusive proof, anywhere, that CWD is spread by nose to nose contact. I don't think they have any idea how CWD starts, or spreads. I've read a million different theories on websites all over the world in the last few weeks. NONE have offered conclusive proof of how CWD starts or spreads. 


Not to mention what this will do to all those people out there who want to feed the wild turkeys who will be afraid to for fear of the DNR swooping down on them with their black helicopters...

Or the retailers out there who depend on the bait sales to bring them "shoulder" business that's not going to be there this year at all-I would be surprised if we have any firearms deer season to speak of at all this year. If they can't bait, which most public land hunters want to do to increase the likelihood of seeing deer during the few days they come up north to hunt as a family tradition...a lot of people aren't going to come at all, especially when they're beating the gas prices we have up here. 

I have yet to see so much as a bowhunter this year...and I'm out there, on public land, birdhunting almost every day. Nobody. 

This is certainly not how you entice new hunters...this is how you make longtime hunters hang it up...


The whole situation is absolutely absurd...


----------



## Pinefarm

Um, only like 15% of deer hunters hunt only public land. By far the vast majority hunt private land.

Without deer bait, virtually everything is going to collapse! :yikes:

Here's the sound...
http://www.tradebit.com/filedetail.php/1746538-helicopter-sound-effect-wav


----------



## Linda G.

Really...since when...with most of the NLP and 90% of the UP being public land, you're trying to tell me most of us hunt private land? Or are you basing that on the number of private land tags people buy-keep in mind people can buy up to three...how many of those do you really believe hunt only private land...


----------



## johnhunter

There have been two surveys over the last several years, and both pointed to the percentage of deer hunters that hunt exclusively public land to be 20% or less. They've been referenced here before, do a search.

Easy for me to believe. Gotta be a hundred thousand guys hunting within ten miles of my farm.

To answer the question: no.


----------



## Danatodd99

I can agree with the ban on baitng (IN THE AREA IN QUESTION) just like they did in fr TB.
I also think the NRC missed a huge part of the battle against spreading, being that since it came from a cervid farm, they need to close them down, all of them. Guaranteed the next one they find will be in the UP, and then they have succeeded to ban baiting in the entire state.

Or, is this an attempt to bolster business from deer hunting in the UP since it is the only place in the state it's legal to bait? 
I'm betting that since some people know no other way to hunt other than baiting that they will go to the UP and continue the way they know how.

just my $.02


----------



## Pinefarm

I'm basing that first on the MDNR/Peyton-Bull survey. 

The Bull/Peyton Study of hunter attitudes, dated December, 2001, and based on a random sample of over 5,000 hunters, 18.7% of Michigan deer hunters hunt strictly on public lands, 23.4% hunt both public and private lands, and 57.9% hunt strictly private lands.

I'm basing that secondly on anecdotal evidence of owning a sport shop in Lake county, which has the most "southern" public land, closest to the large populations of downstate hunters. Even with that, most hunters I talked to, sold stuff to and sold licenses to over the better part of 15 years, hunted private land the vast majority of the time and only occasionally utilized public land. 

I will grant that on Nov. 15 alone, there probably is that public land influx that shows up in the surveys. As far as a deer hunter survey goes, a guy that hunts 6 hours all year on Nov. 15 only surveys the same as a guy who hunts 25 sits all Fall. 
But from my experience, those who spend a lot of time in the woods, like 15 or more sits in bow season, are overwhelmingly private land hunters. Even in my area with al it's public land closest to urban area's.

In fact, I've yet to see a single vehicle parked on the nearby public land near me. Not a single one and we're almost 2 weeks into bow season. Yet, I can think of some 15 private land neighbors that have been out 4-5 sits plus already.

And I will state again, the bait ban is the best thing that ever happened to public land hunters, at least in my area. Gone will be the days of a hunter staking claim to an area with a bait pile. Gone will be the days of scouting an area only to have another hunter plop a bait pile right on the good trail and destroying the natural movements. Gone will be the days of hunters running bait into their stands every other day and causing extra pressure on public land, thus driving the deer onto less human trafficed private land, only to visit the public land bait after dark.

Take yesterday for example. In the AM, my buddy had a nice 8pt come from the public land, hop the fence, and go into our place. In the evening, another buddy shot a nice 8pt, again coming from the public land. 

Last season, three of the nicest bucks we saw came from the public land to our land.

There's good bucks on lots of good public land or at least passing thru public land. But one isn't going to see many of them with bait dotted all over. 

This bait ban is the best thing to happen to any public land hunter who has basic deer hunting skills. If a public land hunter can identify where 2 or more good trails come together and can set up correctly for that sit's wind, he or she will see deer. IMHO


----------



## Linda G.

is the paper they're written on. Got any independent surveys around??

I suppose, since most deer hunting is now in southern Michigan, on 2 acres of land, that could be true. But I still find it hard to believe of the entire state...

I DO know a lot of people who buy private land antlerless tags...funny, I never knew they had permission to hunt on private land...nor have I ever seen them hunting on anyone's private land...

But since that's the only place you can get an antlerless tag for in northern lower Michigan or the UP...then I guess a lot of people are hunting private land...:lol:

Just like those TB deer, the one and only ones ever found, in those counties outside of the core 452 zone...LOL


----------



## johnhunter

The Peyton-Bull studies were conducted by MSU faculty, not the MIDNR. 

There is no reason to believe that the public/private lands hunting % from the 2001 survey is materially inaccurate.


----------



## Lance

I'll start by admitting I didn't read all the responses here as I have limited time and some of all y'all wrote books.

Has anyone considered that diseases like Chronic Wasting and Bovine TB (which most likely existed before domesticated herds) are Mother Natures way of thinning a herd out of control from a population standpoint?

I'm not a scientist orsomeone that has done research to any extent on the subject but I believe Mother Nature (evolution) is probably very efficient at controlling what lives and what dies and why.

Could it be that CWD and Bovine TB are "herd limiters" and just Mother Nature's way of getting things back to where they belong?


----------



## broken arrow

The DNR should all go board a large bus and drive off a cliff. If they knew 1/1,000,000th as much about epidemiology and the dynamics of herd disiease transmission, they might have a shred of a clue. A bunch of beaurocrats leading by committee is just another symptom of a leaderless, clueless, thug based organiziation. The DNR is a cesspool and the ban is ridiculous, as are 99% of their Thrid Reich antics. Anybody ever watch their training video on their website?? If you watch it, take my advice, PEE FIRST!! They are ridiculous.


----------



## J&J'sToy

What I know about this CWD Disease is it not only infect Deer,Elk & Cows. So if it get out of the Deer farms it can spread into our Cattle farm & Milk Cows, what do you do then? We already have high beef & milk prices, do we all want to pay more for these items, I sure don't. 

I do believe the MDNR needs to do a better job at what they do,but lets all face the facts that this ban is for 6 mos. as of right now, So you can't bait for deer or elk do your scouting like we use to before Baiting was allowed, LOL. Most of you forgot how to scout, you all got lazy & don't remember how to scout for runways,scrapes & rubs, Put some time in the woods like we did years ago, Go out & get to know the woods & the sounds it make fell your Heart beat as you walk around & find what make made thoses Runway,Scrapes & Rubs Dam it was DEER.

Well I for one think we need this to get back to our hunting skills that alots of us have lost of the years past. I don't believe in hunting farms for Deer & Elk, We don't need them bring in Deer & Elk that may be infected with TB or CWD, Diseases, into the state, I wish the MDNR could shut them down all together, This my opinion on Deer & Elk farms.


----------



## blahblah

I try to remain open-minded to both sides of the issue of baiting. I personally lean toward no bait seeing that I came from a home state of not being able to bait and still seeing plenty of deer being taken anyway. I do understand the benefit of opportunity for clean kills and doe harvest over bait.

The thing I don't get is seeing people say we "need" bait to control the deer numbers and in the same breath say that we need to feed them to help them through the winter. 

Why not quit baiting and quit feeding and then the natural carrying capacity is reached through winter kill and then it will be easier to take the rest of the does to accomplish the population desired.


----------



## Linda G.

First, I thought cattle couldn't catch CWD...if they could, wouldn't they have quarantined all the domestic buffalo farms? They didn't.

Second, I never said we NEED to feed the deer. I said people LIKE to feed the deer, and because a lot of the deer have lost their instinct to yard up, many will starve. Personally, I'd like to see about half as many deer as we have up here, and there's way more in southern MI than what we have up here...I just don't think people are going to appreciate watching the deer just stand there in their yards, then eat their landscaping, plus the nearby farmers' feed from their silos, silage, and manure piles. We will lose deer if we have a tough winter, and that won't do much to help hunting, either. 

As for natural carrying capacity, I don't believe there's any such thing any more, people have interfered way too much for anything like that. 

Moreover, I think it's ridiculous for the DNR/MDA to create such an aggressive ban, when they have no idea what really causes CWD or how it spreads. There will be too many negative side effects. Way too many. They're cutting their own throats, and doing a good job of it.


----------



## e. fairbanks

Will the bans prevent the spread of CWD if it is'nt there ?
Will the "scare tactics" generate the "emergency" needed to promote more federal funding for MDNR's and MDA's CWD programs ?
Will the bans hasten the USDA APHIS VS decision to upgrade the classification of the lower pennisula (except for the TBIZ) To CERTIFIED BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS FREE ?
Do we live in a society of "make believe" ?
Do our esteemed government experts tell us only what they want us to hear ? Is it possible that they dont tell us what they dont want us to hear ? Can one "read between the lines" to learn the "coverup" ?
Altho labs can accurately test chemicals even in minute amounts, tests for disease can yield both false positive and false negative results.
If lab tests of a suspicious lesion are borderline will a positive lab report 
help create an emergency which will require more federal funding ?


----------



## e. fairbanks

Dr. Steve Schmitt, DNR Veterinarian - " In late August, 1908, a producer culled a sick-looking three year old white-tailed doe and submitted the carcass to Michigan State University's Diagnostic Center for Population and Animal Health (DCPAH) in accordance with disease surveillance requirements. On August 21. 1908, the DCPAH DETERMINED THE SAMPLE IS A STRONG SUSPECT.
Samples were then sent to NVSL Labs in Ames Iowa for conformation on Friday, August 22, and confirmed positive on August 25"

Can one assume the positive diagnosis was the professional opinion of the NVSL staff - they would not find a negative result.


----------



## broken arrow

With the ban being permanent now thanks to the high ranking Reichsfurher Humphries and her committee of liberal, non-hunting idiots, I will revert to my original opinion that the best solution is for the entire staff of the DNR to board a large bus (or several) and drive off the highest cliff they can find. The government keeps shoving more new laws down the throats of the people, and most just keep taking it and smiling. If you don't believe in things like baiting, dove hunting, wearing your setbelts, etc, FINE do what you want. But to just give in with no resistence to a tyranical opressive government entity who seems to mirror their structure and behavior to the Third reich is something I wil not do. How about what you do on your own property is your business??? that's a novel concept.


----------



## fairfax1

*Broken Arrow*....welcome to this site. Your views, at least in the two posts above, are ....well, .... noteworthy. I have not read any quite like them before. No doubt moderators have....but, the rest of us don't often get to see such, ah, _'intensity_'.

For some reading that may help you put the _bait-ban/CWD/your opinions _into a somewhat broader perspective, give Eric Sharps' column in todays' Detroit Free Press (10/12/08) a try.

You may like it.

Or, you may not.


----------



## e. fairbanks

Who brought to my attention that I was 100 years behind the times (twice) in my "NRC MEETING MINUTES" We all make mistakes. Many more deer make the mistake of disregarding traffic than die from disease if we exclude malnutrition which is Mother Natures remedy for wildlife diseases due to overpopulation and degeneration of habitat.
It was gratifying to get the message from Liver and Onions as it demonstrated that someone reads my attempts to suggest that we live in a society of make believe and that change is the only constant (AN ANCIENT PHILOSOPHER' s Dictum)
In my fourscore and ten years I HAVE SEEN MANY CHANGES, TREMENDOUS ADVANCES IN MANY FIELDS.
Unfortunetly, we have not eradicated bovine TB, altho the Eradication Program originated in 1917, the year before I was born (hope I got that date right)


----------



## Pinefarm

Broken Arrow,

Obtaining a hunting license is a priviledge, not a right. A drivers license is also a priviledge, not a right. By buying a hunting license, all you are doing is buying a chance to play "the game" like everyone else, with rules that are constantly changing year to year.

With a priviledge like legal hunting or driving, there is a social contract between the government and the individual. If you play by the rules made for the whole group, you can play if you choose to play. Break the rules enough times and you can no longer play.

Priviledges are applied if the participant voluntarily decides he even wants to play in the game. There is nobody forcing anyone to take up hunting as a prefered sport. You could go bowling or golfing instead. 

If you live in a large city, you may opt not to to even get a drivers license and just get an ID card, since you can take public and mass transit or walk or ride a bike. But if you choose to get a drivers license, there are certain rules made for the masses that everyone needs to play by to keep their priviledge. Break the rules enough times and your legal driving priviledges will be revoked.

What you suggest when you say "what you do on your own property is your business" is the absence of rules and anarchy. You'd allow anyone to shoot whatever deer and how many deer they want, all year long. Or, to drive as fast and as drunk wherever and whenever you wanted. All without the shred of a social contract on what is deemed acceptable for a priviledge.

So, Michigan deer hunters have three good options. One, you buy your license and play by the rules. Two, you violate. Three, the way to really say "SCREW THE DNR!!!!", as you said in an earlier post, is to boycott hunting and to leave the sport of Michigan deer hunting. You could find a state that allows baiting and hunt there or drop out completely and buy a bowling ball.

I sense from your intensity that you'd really like to show the DNR just how mad you are that you can't legally bait anyone. I suggest you take option three and really show them.


----------



## cadillacjethro

I think parts of it are. For me to believe a bait ban would have any measurable effect on stopping the spread of CWD would require the wearing of "rose colored glasses." What bothers me more is the attitude of folks on here. Baiter's are supposed to be happy because, after all, it's for the health of the herd. Plotters on the other hand make excuses about how a ban on plots would be impossible to enact or enforce. When I hear this, I think to myself "but isn't it about the health of the herd?" It would do my heart good if some on here, if only for a moment, would pretend to look at the whole picture. If this were to happen, I believe baiting would be far down the list of problems with deer and deer hunting.


----------



## Pinefarm

Most top CWD experts do not believe that food plots pose a risk greater than other forage or crops.
Suprisingly, even the top biologist from Colorado doesn't see any evidence that urine scents pose a serious enough risk, even though they are from farm raised deer and dumped in a small area, visited by numberous other deer. 

Evidently, even if you dumped a bottle of infected urine on a scrape, the likelyhood of another deer injesting from the scrape ground it is remote. And evidently the top experts here and from out west, believe the same is true with fields. Multiple deer will likley not eat the same rye blade.

Now 10 deer standing on and eating a pile of carrots or beets covered with feces and saliva and multiple deer eating the feces and on the same beet seems to be another case, in the experts thinking.

If CWD gets into the wild, most top folks believe that baiting, as practically practiced in Michigan, will help spread saliva/feces cross contamination far, far more than anything else.


----------



## cadillacjethro

Pinefarm said:


> Most top CWD experts do not believe that food plots pose a risk greater than other forage or crops.


The _point_ is they pose a *risk*. Just as they say baiting does. Show me someone who can distinguish more/less risk from a 2 acre garden vs a 2 acre food plot and I will show you someone who can walk on water.:lol:



Pinefarm said:


> Now 10 deer standing on and eating a pile of carrots or beets covered with feces and saliva and multiple deer eating the feces and on the same beet seems to be another case, in the experts thinking.


Show me that and I will show you what _was_ an illegal bait pile.



Pinefarm said:


> If CWD gets into the wild, most top folks believe that baiting, as practically practiced in Michigan, will help spread saliva/feces cross contamination far, far more than anything else.


If by "as practically practiced" you mean illegal, what makes you think a violator last year will change his or her ways this year?


----------



## Pinefarm

Fields pose the same risk as acorns, berries, choke cherries, good browse. Nobody is suggesting cutting oaks to fight disease spread.

Baiting poses a high risk.

Most baiting that was done was illegal. Just look at these dollar figures being thrown around. It'd take 5,000,000 hunters all baiting everyday to but that much bait with a 2 gallon limit.

I've never found a bait pile that was 2 gallons or under. When a guy throws 6-12 bags of carrots, into the truckbed, it's unlikely that bait will be placed in 2 gallon amounts.


----------



## cadillacjethro

Pinefarm said:


> Fields pose the same risk as acorns, berries, choke cherries, good browse. Nobody is suggesting cutting oaks to fight disease spread.


My point exactly. Completely impractical. For this reason I believe reducing the herd would make so much more sense than a baiting ban. A whitetail deer doesn't care if an apple was dropped by a tree or from a bag. Nor does CWD BTW. 



Pinefarm said:


> Baiting poses a high risk.


Are you sure? Or maybe it is just easier to ban.



Pinefarm said:


> Most baiting that was done was illegal. Just look at these dollar figures being thrown around. It'd take 5,000,000 hunters all baiting everyday to but that much bait with a 2 gallon limit.
> 
> I've never found a bait pile that was 2 gallons or under. When a guy throws 6-12 bags of carrots, into the truckbed, it's unlikely that bait will be placed in 2 gallon amounts.


This is an assumption on your part. I don't know what data you use, but multiple stands for multiple days? Who knows.

You seem to think everyone who baited did so illegally. I know this not to be the case, but for the sake of argument, what makes you think they will abide by the law now? 

Baiting is illegal in the LP now, so the point is mute. If CWD is limited to one deer, you can say the bait ban saved the herd. What are you going to say if CWD is not contained, or another disease hits the herd? Your convenient scapegoat has been eliminated. Until the NRC/DNR enact rules to reduce the herd this threat will be lurking around the next corner. I believe that is where their limited budget and man power would be better utilized.


----------



## Munsterlndr

_Most Cwd experts........._

_Most baiting was illegal........._

I would suggest that both of these statements are completely unsupportable rhetoric.

Hyperbole is generally indicative of a weak argument.


----------



## Quadd4

Originally Posted by *Pinefarm*  
_Most top CWD experts do not believe that food plots pose a risk greater than other forage or crops._


Here's the part the gets me -- If I take 2 gallons of acorns or move some fallen apples from under a tree, under the current ban, I can be ticketed and deemed a poacher yet the private land owners can plant as they see fit. 

Fields, acorns, berries, choke cherries, good browse that are all natural occuring or planted (farms) intended for the overall good of mankind are mute issues. 

I'm not suggesting that plotters should go till under their existing plots but why would anyone who believes that the banning of "LEGAL BAITING PRACTICES" is good, lay to the ground another single seed in lieu of CWD ?

Common sense tells me that both intentional practices are done to attract deer. One method, baiting, is easier to enforce against than restricting food plots but if we're all concerned about the heath of the herd, why should it require a law, or lack of one for us to demonstrate common sense?


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Quadd4 said:


> Originally Posted by *Pinefarm*
> _Most top CWD experts do not believe that food plots pose a risk greater than other forage or crops._
> 
> 
> Here's the part the gets me -- If I take 2 gallons of acorns or move some fallen apples from under a tree, under the current ban, I can be ticketed and deemed a poacher yet the private land owners can plant as they see fit.
> 
> Fields, acorns, berries, choke cherries, good browse that are all natural occuring or planted (farms) intended for the overall good of mankind are mute issues.
> 
> I'm not suggesting that plotters should go till under their existing plots but why would anyone who believes that the banning of "LEGAL BAITING PRACTICES" is good, lay to the ground another single seed in lieu of CWD ?
> 
> Common sense tells me that both intentional practices are done to attract deer. One method, baiting, is easier to enforce against than restricting food plots but if we're all concerned about the heath of the herd, why should it require a law, or lack of one for us to demonstrate common sense?


Brother, if that isn't the truth. (They) can't see it that way though. The opportunity to attract the uprooted deer from this ban, is too strong. They see mass and points, nothing more. A large part of this ban has always been, and always will be about greed.


----------



## blahblah

Why is everyone acting like the bait ban is some specific response to CWD? When a disease is discovered, it is common practice (not just in Michigan) to stop baiting and feeding. This is to reduce the chances of a typical browser from sticking its face into a pile shared by the rest of the deer in the area. Is it a fool proof solution, no way! But it is the best anyone can do to prevent deer from swapping spit and having more than natural nose to nose contact.

As for baiting in the past, there may have been "legal" baiting the in past as far as the 2 gallon part is concerned but who actually spread that bait in a 10' x 10' area as required by law, that also was designed to keep deer from too much nose to nose contact and saliva exchange. I can bet that the vast majority did not spread the bait out as required. 

So for all the people that think the Michigan DNR is out to get them, look around at other states and biologists in general, you really don't have it that bad here. There are many states that baiting never was allowed and other states that would have reacted much more harshly to the discovery of CWD.

The one thing I can promise is that bad wildlife biology and/or bad wildlife stewards (hunters) would not even be able to wipe out the deer herd in Michigan. There are enough deer around that if everyone is wrong most of the time there will still be deer around.


----------



## Munsterlndr

blahblah said:


> Why is everyone acting like the bait ban is some specific response to CWD?


Um, maybe because the bait ban was a specific response called for in the CWD eradication plan and that is the authority under which it was put in place? Exactly which other disease do you think it's in response to? We've had TB for years with no peninsula wide baiting ban. EHD? I don't think the NRC is banning baiting to prevent the spread of EHD.


----------



## Pinefarm

Oh, there's greed out there alright. I'm disappointed just how much of it there is out there with many deer hunters. Lots of selfishness added to that greed too, with a big dose of shortsightedness and dash of fear of change. IMHO


----------



## blahblah

Yeah, I kind of walked right into that one...what I meant about it being a specific response to CWD is that this whole action plan is not original to Michigan. In 2002 they basically took a somewhat "standard" response plan that many other states were using or planning to use and copied it. There is very few things in this plan that are specific to Michigan.

We can look at this in two different ways. The state biologists saved a lot of time, money and effort by adopting an already mostly finished plan, or we get mad because it isn't perfect in every way and demand they spend more time and money that we sportsmen can't afford to pay them to come up with a plan that plugs some of these holes. Lets face it, no matter if everyone spent all their time into trying to control this with very specific measures it would probably make very little difference over taking care of it with general measures like banning baiting and feeding.

Without a live test and live treatment we are kind of stuck, isn't it better we over-react rather than treat this with kid gloves. We can't go back and change our minds later if this takes hold and spreads.

I probably mis-spoke myself in here again so have at me....haha.


----------



## Neal

scott kavanaugh said:


> Brother, if that isn't the truth. (They) can't see it that way though. The opportunity to attract the uprooted deer from this ban, is too strong. They see mass and points, nothing more. A large part of this ban has always been, and always will be about greed.


Who is they?


----------



## axisgear

I turned in my quarantine deer to learn they were clean. Makes me feel a bit better overall.Kibbles await!


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Neal said:


> Who is they?


QDMA, SOME NRC, DNR, & BIOLOGIST, that have been pressured for years toward QDMA goals and wants. Some of those folks of course have their own agenda and not even I can blame them on QDMA.:lol:


----------



## Krafty-Hunter

They have been wanting to ban baiting for a long time and never had a reason to do it till now. If this disease was as bad as they say it was woudln't have they found more than ONE INFECTED DEER in that private heard? I believe that that deer was planted there so they could move forward with what they have been trying to do for many years and that banning baiting of deer. Another thing is too what happened to only making it a 50 mile radius on the quarentine they have to go ahead and ban the whole state, that right there tells you that they are masking what they are trying to do puffing smoke up our butts just to get what they want.

This makes me mad not because I bait. I was brought up that feeding deer was for watching them not for hunting a good hunter doesn't need a bait pile......because it's our state and federal goverment with yet another plot to control what us as the population of the state is doing and shoving new laws down our throats. 

One last thing don't you think the economy in this state is bad enough as it is that they need to put a ban on feeding what about all the farmers that grow these carrots and everything else to sell as bait?? these people use this as most of there gross that they use to put back into there farms and in there pockets to feed there families. What's next the goverment going to start buying up all the land because the these farmers are going bankrupt and then reselling it so they can make the whole state urbanized and end up making it like atlanta were there are no trees and all houses?


----------



## Direwolfe

Krafty,

Fascinating theories. If they wanted to ban baiting, why didn't the DNR write the CWD plan to ban baiting statewide at the finding of CWD? Do you think they're next going to "plant" one in the UP?


----------



## Biggsy

I started this thread to point out that the DNR does not seem to be following the CWD plan as written in the aspect that there making changes without getting the rusults from the 300 free ranging deer that the plan immediately calls out to be eradicated. I didn't start this thread to be a baiting issue, I want what's best for the state, herd and hunters in response to the real threat if indeed it does exist but until the DNR follows there own plan and provides the results which should have been completed weeks ago we are all in the dark with no real direction to follow except the general direction of the 5 year old plan. If CWD is not in our free ranging deer herd we can all be at ease and argue about the good ole things like crossbows, QDM, OBR and other good things like that which we like to agree to disagree on. Now DNR, WHERE ARE THE RESULTS!!!!!:rant:


----------



## Direwolfe

Biggsy,

Are you referring to the results posted prior to this thread under the misleading title of "CWD Results On More Than 500 Deer"?


----------



## cadillacjethro

swoosh said:


> Suffer from what? The majority of sportsman in MI loathe the DNR. Majority of sportsman in MI have 0 respect for the DNR.


I don't believe this for a second. The problems folks have with the DNR have very little to do with the "foot soldiers". Look higher up the ladder.



swoosh said:


> Do you know for a fact the plan was not look a every year and amended?


I hope it wasn't. If it was, I believe they *completely *dropped the ball.



swoosh said:


> Now because DNR/NRC ban baiting they most follow the "sound Science" theory. Well lets see, I have heard this chant before. When some bring up OBR, we get told DNR/NRC most all use social science.
> 
> Which is it?
> 
> DNR is not the department of hunter satisfaction(from member here).


I believe they must delicately balance both. If you don't think the DNR has to satisfy hunters, ask yourself what will happen to them (DNR) when hunters are no more.



swoosh said:


> I was told this a lot the past years, if you don't like it, hunt out of state:lol:


Glad to see the smiley face, as this statement is akin to a two year old taking his/her toys out of the sandbox and running home.


----------



## johnhunter

cadillacjethro said:


> I believe they must delicately balance both. If you don't think the DNR has to satisfy hunters, ask yourself what will happen to them (DNR) when hunters are no more.


Have you ever looked at an organizational chart of the MIDNR? If you did, you'd note what a small part of it is specifically directed at sport hunting, let alone deer hunting. Yep, deer hunting could completely end, and we'd still have a DNR. 

Come to think of it, with the permanent baiting ban now in effect, there'll be more sport hunting going on in Michigan this year than we've seen in a long time.


----------



## cadillacjethro

farmlegend said:


> Have you ever looked at an organizational chart of the MIDNR? If you did, you'd note what a small part of it is specifically directed at sport hunting, let alone deer hunting. Yep, deer hunting could completely end, and we'd still have a DNR.
> 
> Come to think of it, with the permanent baiting ban now in effect, there'll be more sport hunting going on in Michigan this year than we've seen in a long time.


Take sportsmen and women dollars away from the DNR and see what you have left. Whether hunting is more sporting without bait, food plots, scents and lures, or scent free clothing is a matter of opinion. If one makes it less sporting, then it stands to reason that they all do.
I suspect FL, you're not stupid enough to believe an apple dropped from a tree or a hand makes any difference to a deer or a disease. It only makes a difference to folks like you who for some reason don't like it.


----------



## swoosh

> Glad to see the smiley face, as this statement is akin to a two year old taking his/her toys out of the sandbox and running home.


I agree and was told to me many times in the past It pissed me off too!!



> I don't believe this for a second. The problems folks have with the DNR have very little to do with the "foot soldiers". Look higher up the ladder.


Higher up is still the DNR, so I do not get your point here.



> I believe they must delicately balance both. If you don't think the DNR has to satisfy hunters, ask yourself what will happen to them (DNR) when hunters are no more


So all 700,000 are going to quit, DNR would still be around, it would be smaller.

Hunting is not going anywhere, if it's about family, tradition and outdoors what does bait have to do with those things?


----------



## johnhunter

cadillacjethro said:


> I suspect FL, you're not stupid enough to believe an apple dropped from a tree or a hand makes any difference to a deer or a disease. It only makes a difference to folks like you who for some reason don't like it.


Mostly, it makes a difference to folks that have made a career as wildlife biologists, some of whom have specialized in the study of wildlife disease transmission; these individuals are near-unanimous in their revulsion at baiting. Their professional opinion is good enough for me.


----------



## cadillacjethro

farmlegend said:


> Mostly, it makes a difference to folks that have made a career as wildlife biologists, some of whom have specialized in the study of wildlife disease transmission; these individuals are near-unanimous in their revulsion at baiting. Their professional opinion is good enough for me.


I would have thought someone as esteemed as you would do your own thinking. Ask your friends the wildlife biologists if there is indeed a difference in an apple dropped by a tree or out of a bag. Not to them, but to the deer. I have read enough of your posts to know that if you weren't in favor of this ban, you would be all over it. The science sucks and no one has the sand to stand up and say "Man, did we screw this one up."


----------



## Beavervet

farmlegend said:


> Mostly, it makes a difference to folks that have made a career as wildlife biologists, some of whom have specialized in the study of wildlife disease transmission; these individuals are near-unanimous in their revulsion at baiting. Their professional opinion is good enough for me.


At the MUCC sponsored seminar on CWD the MDNR's "top gun" scientist said that CWD has reached 50% in some areas near Boulder, Colorado and that there is a 50% population loss in this area. I found this so astounding that I visited the Colorado Division of Wildlife's CWD statistics website http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/763F5731-F895-4D52-9F27-2B8D5BE91175/0/CWDReport0507.pdf that didnt show anything close to what Dr. Miller said. So I called the Colorado Division of Wildlife to see where this area was since it was not evident on the statistics update, done by Dr. Miller this summer. The spokesperson was unaware of any such area and furthermore was unaware of any area of high mortality in Colorado anywhere. So I next called Dr. Miller and left him a message as to where this area is.........Dr. Miller has not returned my call.

If you want to blindly follow what scientists tell you then go ahead, but you must realize that advancing the dangers of CWD creates opportunities for funding to flow into these organizations from the Federal Government, and as long as that is the case, their opinions are subject to bias.


----------



## cadillacjethro

swoosh said:


> I agree and was told to me many times in the past It pissed me off too!!
> 
> 
> 
> Higher up is still the DNR, so I do not get your point here.
> 
> 
> 
> So all 700,000 are going to quit, DNR would still be around, it would be smaller.
> 
> Hunting is not going anywhere, if it's about family, tradition and outdoors what does bait have to do with those things?


"Higher up is still the DNR" is absolutely right, but your friend will take the hit for someone else's stupidity. I have many friends (current and retired) in the DNR and it makes me sad to think their credibility may be called into question because of decisions like this. Remember spawn and VHS. These people really should be making better decisions than these. BTW the DNR will be asking for a license increase soon. How many sports people do you think they can afford to loose?


----------



## johnhunter

cadillacjethro said:


> Ask your friends the wildlife biologists if there is indeed a difference in an apple dropped by a tree or out of a bag. Not to them, but to the deer.


The example you cite (an apple from a tree vs. a bag) is not analgous to the issue of the effect of baiting upon disease transmission. It's what the logicians refer to as a "straw man".


----------



## Beavervet

farmlegend said:


> The example you cite (an apple from a tree vs. a bag) is not analgous to the issue of the effect of baiting upon disease transmission. It's what the logicians refer to as a "straw man".


Quite the contrary, your MDNR scientist testified in the Michigan senate that deer are more susceptible to disease from apples artificially placed because they only eat parts of apples in that circumstance whereas deer eat the entire apple when it has fallen naturally from a tree, thus his justification for the baiting ban is based on this nonsense and cadillacjethro is not misrepresenting the scientists logic.


----------



## cadillacjethro

farmlegend said:


> The example you cite (an apple from a tree vs. a bag) is not analgous to the issue of the effect of baiting upon disease transmission. It's what the logicians refer to as a "straw man".


I never knew white tailed deer were referred to as logicians.:lol: What percentage of a deer's life is spent at a bait pile? As far as avenue and opportunity for disease transmission, there are much larger threats. FWIW, I used common sense to come to these conclusions.


----------



## markbarth

farmlegend said:


> The example you cite (an apple from a tree vs. a bag) is not analgous to the issue of the effect of baiting upon disease transmission. It's what the logicians refer to as a "straw man".


Just what is the effect of baiting upon disease transmission? Even your good enough for me scientist have no proof that baiting spreads cwd.
Show me one scientific document that shows proof that it does.
Not one that says could,might,possibly,maybe or if.
Will you still have that good enough for me because the scientist said so attitude when they say that food plots could or might spread cwd.
I doubt it.

When a deer pulls up a rooted vegetable or plant up from your food plot and leaves it  there laying on the ground, Does that make your food plot a bait pile ?


----------



## scott kavanaugh

farmlegend said:


> Have you ever looked at an organizational chart of the MIDNR? If you did, you'd note what a small part of it is specifically directed at sport hunting, let alone deer hunting. Yep, deer hunting could completely end, and we'd still have a DNR.
> 
> Come to think of it, with the permanent baiting ban now in effect, there'll be more sport hunting going on in Michigan this year than we've seen in a long time.


Your right fl , there would still be a (midnr) there probably would be enough funding to have a co and bioliogist for each letter.


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Beavervet said:


> At the MUCC sponsored seminar on CWD the MDNR's "top gun" scientist said that CWD has reached 50% in some areas near Boulder, Colorado and that there is a 50% population loss in this area. I found this so astounding that I visited the Colorado Division of Wildlife's CWD statistics website http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdonlyres/763F5731-F895-4D52-9F27-2B8D5BE91175/0/CWDReport0507.pdf that didnt show anything close to what Dr. Miller said. So I called the Colorado Division of Wildlife to see where this area was since it was not evident on the statistics update, done by Dr. Miller this summer. The spokesperson was unaware of any such area and furthermore was unaware of any area of high mortality in Colorado anywhere. So I next called Dr. Miller and left him a message as to where this area is.........Dr. Miller has not returned my call.
> 
> If you want to blindly follow what scientists tell you then go ahead, but you must realize that advancing the dangers of CWD creates opportunities for funding to flow into these organizations from the Federal Government, and as long as that is the case, their opinions are subject to bias.


Here's a question. How can the DNR/NRC think they are going to get away with spewing bogus information to back up their decisions, citeing so called experts who are purely useing sensationalism to scare people? Anyone who knows anything, knows by now miller and scmidts numbers aren't right. Even casual hunters are suspicious of Michigans DNR/NRC, do they really think they have enough clout to make it on this one?

Did they just think they would use the bogus numbers, scare everyone into submission, get what they wanted quickly, and everyone would forget how they got it and life at the DNR/NRC would become sunny and shine?????? I promise Michigan isn't going to forget the DNR/NRC handleing of CWD. If they are making the mistake of thinking this will settle down like past mistakes. LOL


----------



## M1Garand

They handled it in a way that was put into policy in 2002. Did you dispute it then? Write your legislator? So now that it was implemented, you have a huge issue with it. You continually post that you apparently have all the answers. Was your degree in biology, microbiology or epidemiology? I didn't think so, yet you know much more than those who do. 

I don't always agree with what the NRC does either and question their logic too. But there are some very good biologists and other personnel who work for the DNR. I have nothing against baiting and I've done it myself. And I agree with the ban. I also agree more should be done than just banning bait, but the fact is that's where it stands. I'm sorry that it must've turned your hunting style upside down but you're gonna have to deal with the fact unless you go to the UP, you can't bait.


----------



## fairfax1

Let me go back up this thread to a comment by a frequent poster that opined: 
_"The majority of sportsman in MI loathe the DNR. Majority of sportsman in MI have 0 respect for the DNR."_

That poster squatted on his spurs.
Of the overabundance of drivel that has been posted on the Bait Debate this is one of the most irresponsible.
It is nonsense. 

The poster may loathe the DNR, but to take what must be his own personal beef and project it onto hundreds of thousands --if not a million--sportsmen is way over the top.

The kindest comment on his comment is that it should be ignored.

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

Then, in-line with FrmLgnd, I too, find the DNR's science 'good'nuff' for me. It surely is far more credible than some retail veterinarian's hobby opinion; an individual who is not responsible for the health of the public's deer herd, nor accountable to a public constituency for that herd; who, unless I'm mistaken, does not do deer-disease issues full time.

I will not give a hobbyist's opinion, no matter how sincerely held, the weight I would give to the opinions of professionals who are responsible, who are accountable, and who do deer issues full-time.

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

Baiting is now illegal. To continue to do it is poaching. So adapt to the new normal and move on.
It most surely is not the ruin of a handful of merchants nor the northern Michigan economy. To make statement that it is, is simple bombast; an attempt to advance a pro-bait agenda.


----------



## swoosh

> That poster squatted on his spurs.
> Of the overabundance of drivel that has been posted on the Bait Debate this is one of the most irresponsible.
> It is nonsense.


I suggest you listen to what sportsmen say around MI, the comment is not irresponsible at all. I will re-cant my word "loathe" and use a slight lack of respect.

BTW a majority is above 50%

I never stated I loathe the DNR, I happen to have great respect for DNR


----------



## Munsterlndr

fairfax1 said:


> Then, in-line with FrmLgnd, I too, find the DNR's science 'good'nuff' for me.


And here is the crux of the problem. The DNR has offered no science to support the reasoning behind the ban. Please provide a cite for a single scientific study that the DNR has noted in support of the ban. 

Go to the DNR website and try and find any scientific evidence that they are providing. The most that they have provided is the personal opinion of several "experts". Those opinions are not backed up by any research or any studies. If just the unsupported opinion of the DNR is enough to satisfy your curiosity, then you have a very low threshhold for seeking the truth in this matter. 

I know darn well that you and Dan disagree with the DNR on whether the second buck tag decreases the number of antlerless deer harvested, despite the fact that Rod Clute, an "expert", has stated that the second tag keeps hunters in the woods, which results in more antlerless deer being harvested. Note that this is just an opinion offered by Mr. Clute, not backed up with any science. So why don't you accept that as fact?

I'm guessing that you choose to agree with the opinions offered on the baiting issue because they happen to support your own personal antipathy towards the practice of baiting and that the fact that they are not supported by any science is irrelevant. 

The DNR is blowing smoke over the second buck tag because they want the revenue it generates. Science has nothing to do with their stance on that issue. They are also blowing smoke on the CWD issue, because they have wanted to ban baiting for some time, for reasons unrelated to CWD.


----------



## oldrank

Munsterlndr said:


> And here is the crux of the problem. The DNR has offered no science to support the reasoning behind the ban. Please provide a cite for a single scientific study that the DNR has noted in support of the ban.
> 
> Go to the DNR website and try and find any scientific evidence that they are providing. The most that they have provided is the personal opinion of several "experts". Those opinions are not backed up by any research or any studies. If just the unsupported opinion of the DNR is enough to satisfy your curiosity, then you have a very low threshhold for seeking the truth in this matter.
> 
> I know darn well that you and Dan disagree with the DNR on whether the second buck tag decreases the number of antlerless deer harvested, despite the fact that Rod Clute, an "expert", has stated that the second tag keeps hunters in the woods, which results in more antlerless deer being harvested. Note that this is just an opinion offered by Mr. Clute, not backed up with any science. So why don't you accept that as fact?
> 
> I'm guessing that you choose to agree with the opinions offered on the baiting issue because they happen to support your own personal antipathy towards the practice of baiting and that the fact that they are not supported by any science is irrelevant.
> 
> The DNR is blowing smoke over the second buck tag because they want the revenue it generates. Science has nothing to do with their stance on that issue. They are also blowing smoke on the CWD issue, because they have wanted to ban baiting for some time, for reasons unrelated to CWD.


 
right on!!!


----------



## fphilli1

Amen brother, you make more sense than anyone on this site. I do not understand the ban either. What is the difference of deer feeding at a specific spot in few numbers when the same heard will feed in corn fields 300 yards from the feeder as a group anyways. I do not get what the ban is restricting?????


----------



## fphilli1

I do not get the ban. What is the difference of a few deer from a local herd feeding at a casual feeder for a snack, or the same herd in larger numbers feeding together at a corn field 300 yards from the feeder???? What is the ban supose to be stopping, deer from feeding together?????


----------



## terry

Research

Environmental Sources of Prion Transmission in Mule Deer Michael W. Miller,* Elizabeth S. Williams, N. Thompson Hobbs, and Lisa L. Wolfe* *Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA; University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA; and Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA



snip...

Discussion Figure

Figure. Green forage growing at the site where a deer carcass infected with chronic wasting disease had decomposed...

Prions cannot be directly demonstrated in excreta or soil. However, CWD infectionspecific protease-resistant prion protein (PrPCWD) accumulates in gut-associated lymphoid tissues (e.g., tonsils, Peyer patches, and mesenteric lymph nodes) of infected mule deer (11,17,22), which implicates alimentary shedding of the CWD agent in both feces and saliva (10,11,17). Because PrPCWD becomes progressively abundant in nervous system and lymphoid tissues through the disease course (11), carcasses of deer succumbing to CWD also likely harbor considerable infectivity and thus serve as foci of infection. We could not determine the precise mechanism for CWD transmission in excreta-contaminated paddocks, but foraging and soil consumption seemed most plausible. Deer did not actively consume decomposed carcass remains, but they did forage in the immediate vicinity of carcass sites where a likely nutrient flush (23) produced lush vegetation (Figure).

Our findings show that environmental sources of infectivity may contribute to CWD epidemics and illustrate the potential complexity of such epidemics in natural populations. The relative importance of different routes of infection from the environment cannot be discerned from our experiment, but each could play a role in sustaining natural epidemics. Although confinement likely exaggerated transmission probabilities, conditions simulated by this experiment do arise in the wild. Mule deer live in established home ranges and show strong fidelity to historic home ranges (24-26). As a result of such behavior, encounters with contaminated environments will occur more frequently than if deer movements were random. Feces and carcass remains are routinely encountered on native ranges, thus representing natural opportunities for exposure. Social behavior of deer, particularly their tendency to concentrate and become sedentary on their winter range, also may increase the probability of coming into contact with sources of infection in their environment.

The ability of the CWD agent to persist in contaminated environments for >2 years may further increase the probability of transmission and protract epidemic dynamics (8). Because infectivity in contaminated paddocks could not be measured, neither the initial levels nor degradation rate of the CWD agent in the environment was estimable. However, the observed persistence of the CWD agent was comparable to that of the scrapie agent, which persisted in paddocks for 1 to 3 years after removal of naturally infected sheep (7). Similarities between the CWD and scrapie agents suggest that environmental persistence may be a common trait of prions. Whether persistence of the BSE prion in contaminated feed production facilities or in environments where cattle reside contributed to BSE cases in the United Kingdom after feed bans were enacted (27) remains uncertain but merits further consideration.

Indirect transmission and environmental persistence of prions will complicate efforts to control CWD and perhaps other animal prion diseases. Historically, control strategies for animal prion diseases have focused on infected live animals as the primary source of infection. Although live deer and elk represent the most plausible mechanism for geographic spread of CWD, our data show that environmental sources could contribute to maintaining and prolonging local epidemics, even when all infected animals are eliminated. Moreover, the efficacy of various culling strategies as control measures depends in part on the rates at which the CWD agent is added to and lost from the environment. Consequently, these dynamics and their implications for disease management need to be more completely understood.

http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/vol10no6/04-0010.htm

Potential sources and transmission routes 


154. It is not known at what point during the course of infection cervids become infectious, however it appears likely that shedding of the agent is progressive through the course of the disease, and that shedding starts before the onset of clinical signs (Williams & Miller, 2002; Van Deelen, 2003; Bollinger et al., 2004). 155. Tissues in which PrPCWD has been detected by IHC and which may therefore act as sources of PrPCWD include the brain and retina of mule deer, lymphoid tissues (gut-associated lymphoid tissues, mesenteric lymph nodes, lymphoid follicles in the posterior nasal septum, tonsils, visceral and peripheral lymph nodes and Peyers patches) (Spraker et al., 2002c), and in the pituitary (pars intermedia and pars nervosa), the adrenals (adrenal medulla) and the pancreas (islets of Langerhans) (Sigurdson et al., 2001). Tissues in which PrPCWD has not been detected by IHC and which are therefore unlikely to act as sources of PrPCWD include the peripheral nervous system (including the dorsal root ganglia, anterior mesenteric ganglia and trigeminal ganglia), parotid and mandibular salivary glands, tongue, oesophagus, the digestive tract rumen, abomasum, small intestines and colon except for gut-associated lymphoid tissues, respiratory system (trachea, bronchi, bronchioles, alveolar parenchyma) except for lymphoid follicles in the posterior nasal septum, cardiovascular system (myocardium, Purkinje fibres, walls of peripheral arteries and veins), thyroid, pars anterior of the pituitary, musculoskeletal system (skeletal muscle), smooth muscle, and urogenital system (kidney, urinary bladder, ovary, uterus, placentomes, testis, epididymus), and skin (including epidermis, dermis, and subcutaneous tissues including sebaceous, sweat, lachrymal and tarsal glands) (Spraker et al., 2002c). 156. Given the presence of PrP in lymphoid tissues associated with the alimentary tract early in the course of disease it seems possible that shedding of the agent may occur at an early stage of infection. Excretion of the agent in faeces is plausible and if the agent is present in saliva then this also may be a source of agent; in the terminal stages of CWD affected animals drool saliva (Williams & Miller, 2003); nasal secretions may also be involved (Wild & Miller, 2004). Shedding of PrPCWD is probably progressive during the course of infection (Miller et al., 2000). From epidemic models it is probable that shedding of PrPCWD precedes the onset of clinical disease in an infected cervid (Williams, Miller, & Thorne, 2002). Epidemic models of captive mule deer suggest that shedding may occur from about half way through the total incubation period and models assuming shedding about 12 to 18 months after infection have represented the dynamics which have been observed for CWD in free ranging mule deer (Williams & Miller, 2003). Additionally, following the death of an infected individual, environmental contamination with the agent could occur by scavenging (including by invertebrates) and decomposition (Williams & Miller, 2003). 157. Transmission of CWD probably occurs by both direct and indirect routes (Williams & Miller, 2002). Since TSE agents are very resistant in the environment, indirect transmission may occur via environmental contamination (Williams et al., 2002). Environmental contamination has been proven experimentally to be able to act as a source of infection (see paragraph 162)(Miller et al., 2004) and appears to play a role in the maintenance of CWD, at least in captive populations, as has been indicated by the recurrence of CWD in facilities following complete depopulation and subsequent repopulation, even when repopulation was carried out from a certified CWD-free herd (Woodbury, 2001). 158. The possibility of an unidentified invertebrate reservoir of infectious agent, such as hay mites, in the environment, has been considered (Miller, Wild & Williams, 1998; Salman, 2003); no data is yet available. The possibility of an unidentified vertebrate reservoir should also be considered (Salman, 2003). CWD Review / Dr Debra Bourne / October 2004 / For SEAC / Page 34 of 66 


159. It is also not possible to discount the possibility that prion-contaminated feed may initiate a CWD epidemic (Miller & Williams, 2004). Experimental data on natural transmission routes (i.e. not including inoculation) Contact 



160. Mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) from CWD-negative source populations, maintained in paddocks together with a known naturally CWD-infected mule deer (one infected deer per test paddock), became infected (in two of three replicate paddocks) within about one year. Infection in the experimental animals was detected initially by immunohistochemical staining using anti-PrP monoclonal antibody (Mab) 99/97.6.1 and then confirmed. Two of ten deer became infected in this experiment: one of four deer in each of two paddocks but neither of two deer in the third paddock (Miller et al., 2004). From enclosures previously used by infected animals 


161. It has been recognised for some time that environmental contamination may play a significant role in the transmission of CWD; contaminated pastures appear to have acted as sources of the agent in some epidemics of CWD (Miller et al., 2000; Williams et al., 2002). 


162. Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus from CWD-negative source populations, maintained in paddocks which had been empty for about 2.2 years but had previously held orallyinoculated mule deer and had not been cleaned of residual excreta (about 3.8 infected mule deer x years of excreta per paddock), became infected (in one of three replicate paddocks) within about one year. Infection in the experimental animals was detected initially by immunohistochemical staining using anti-PrP monoclonal antibody (Mab) 99/97.6.1 and then confirmed. One of nine deer became infected in this experiment: one of three deer in one paddock but none of three deer in either of the other two paddocks. It was noted that the presence of PrPCWD in gut-associated lymphoid tissue of infected mule deer implicates alimentary shedding of the agent in both faeces and saliva. While the exact mechanism of CWD transmission in these paddocks could not be determined, the most plausible options were suggested to be foraging and ingestion of soil (Miller et al., 2004). It was noted that since the infectivity in the paddocks could not be measured it was not possible to give information on either the initial levels of infectivity or the degradation rate of the CWD agent in the environment (Miller et al., 2004). From carcasses 163. Mule deer Odocoileus hemionus from CWD-negative source populations, maintained in paddocks containing carcasses of infected mule deer became infected (in two of three replicate paddocks) within about one year. One carcass was provided per paddock, from a mule deer euthanased in end-stage clinical CWD, left intact (except for a small brainstem sample removed to confirm infection) and left to decompose in situ for about 1.8 years before the test deer were introduced into the paddock with the now skeletonised carcass. Infection in the experimental animals was detected initially by immunohistochemical staining using anti- PrP monoclonal antibody (Mab) 99/97.6.1 and then confirmed. Three of twelve deer became infected in this experiment: two of four deer in one paddock, one of five deer in one paddock and none of three deer in the third paddock. It was noted that while the deer did not actively consume decomposed remains of carcasses they did forage in the immediate vicinity of the carcasses and it was likely that a nutrient flush in this area produced lush vegetation. (Miller et al., 2004). CWD Review / Dr Debra Bourne / October 2004 / For SEAC / Page 35 of 66 Problems of eradication/environmental contamination 164. Two attempts have been made to eradicate CWD from infected research facilities. In a Wyoming facility all cervids in the main portion of the site, where CWD had occurred, were killed and animals were not reintroduced for a year; CWD recurred about five years later. No attempt had been made to disinfect or turn the soil (Williams & Young, 1992). Attempted elimination of infection at the Foothills Wildlife Research Facility, Fort Collins, Colorado (and its satellite facilities) involved killing all cervids residing in the facilities in 1985, treating paddocks in which affected cervids had resided by spraying with 1,000 ppm calcium hypochlorite solution (65% available chlorine), ploughing to about 0.3 m deep and respraying, replacing shelters, feed bunkers and automatic waterers or hand cleaning these twice with 1,000 ppm calcium hypochlorite solution, constructing an eight-foot high deerproof perimeter fence and leaving the enclosures unoccupied for 12 months before restocking with wild-caught fawns in June 1986. The disease recurred after restocking (Neil, 1985; Neil, 1986; Murphy, 1994; Miller, Wild & Williams, 1998). 165. It is worth noting that while CWD has occurred in cervids in, probably, three zoos, the disease has apparently not been maintained in these locations: no further cases have occurred following the initial cases in cervids with links to infected research facilities in Colorado and Wyoming, despite the lack of any deliberate attempt to disinfect the areas. (Laplanch et al., 1999; Williams et al., 2002). Epidemiology and spread in captive and farmed cervids 166. Spread of CWD between farms probably occurs by human movement of infected animals for commercial purposes (Miller & Williams, 2003). The potential for spread of CWD by this means has been recognised for some time (Williams & Young, 1992; Miller & Williams, 2004). 167. Within the captive elk herds of Canada it appears that all transmissions have been caused by movement of live elk between farms (Canadian Food Inspection Agency, 2002). 168. Given that lateral transmission, whether direct or indirect, is important, concentrating populations of cervids, as occurs in captivity, is likely to increase transmission (Williams, Miller & Thorne, 2002; Miller & Williams, 2003). 169. Lateral transmission from mule deer to elk is considered the most likely source of CWD in elk in research facilities in Colorado and Wyoming where the disease was seen in mule deer and then later in elk (Williams & Young, 1992). Lateral transmission between elk was indicated by the study of an outbreak in elk at the Foothills Wildlife Research Facility, Fort Collins, Colorado, in which the affected animals, brought into the facility from the wild and hand-reared, did not have any contact with other cervid species. It was acknowledged that common-source exposure, such as environmental contamination, could also have been involved (Miller, Wild & Williams, 1998).

snip...

http://www.seac.gov.uk/papers/CWD-bournereview.pdf

http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdon...74659A/0/environmental_sources_prion_tran.pdf

http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdon...C13DB33/0/Oral_transmission_and_early_JGV.pdf

http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdon...C-8D7D800EDFD3/0/Epizootiology_of_CWD_JWD.pdf

http://wildlife.state.co.us/NR/rdon...240-B625-2EDC64D4869B/0/CWD_mule_deer_JWM.pdf


DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH & HUMAN SERVICES PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION

April 9, 2001 WARNING LETTER

01-PHI-12 CERTIFIED MAIL RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Brian J. Raymond, Owner Sandy Lake Mills 26 Mill Street P.O. Box 117 Sandy Lake, PA 16145 PHILADELPHIA DISTRICT

Tel: 215-597-4390

Dear Mr. Raymond:

Food and Drug Administration Investigator Gregory E. Beichner conducted an inspection of your animal feed manufacturing operation, located in Sandy Lake, Pennsylvania, on March 23, 2001, and determined that your firm manufactures animal feeds including feeds containing prohibited materials. The inspection found significant deviations from the requirements set forth in Title 21, code of Federal Regulations, part 589.2000 - Animal Proteins Prohibited in Ruminant Feed. The regulation is intended to prevent the establishment and amplification of Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE) . Such deviations cause products being manufactured at this facility to be misbranded within the meaning of Section 403(f), of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (the Act).

Our investigation found failure to label your swine feed with the required cautionary statement "Do Not Feed to cattle or other Ruminants" The FDA suggests that the statement be distinguished by different type-size or color or other means of highlighting the statement so that it is easily noticed by a purchaser.

In addition, we note that you are using approximately 140 pounds of cracked corn to flush your mixer used in the manufacture of animal feeds containing prohibited material. This flushed material is fed to wild game including deer, a ruminant animal. Feed material which may potentially contain prohibited material should not be fed to ruminant animals which may become part of the food chain.

The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list of deviations from the regulations. As a manufacturer of materials intended for animal feed use, you are responsible for assuring that your overall operation and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance with the law. We have enclosed a copy of FDA's Small Entity Compliance Guide to assist you with complying with the regulation... blah, blah, blah...

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g1115d.pdf

http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/07/docket-03d-0186-fda-issues-draft.html


http://chronic-wasting-disease.blogspot.com/


TSS


----------



## Beavervet

terry said:


> Research
> 
> Environmental Sources of Prion Transmission in Mule Deer Michael W. Miller,* Elizabeth S. Williams, N. Thompson Hobbs, and Lisa L. Wolfe* *Colorado Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA; University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming, USA; and Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado, USA
> TSS


Thanks for pointing out more of Dr. Miller's research on CWD. He called me today because I was curious where the 50% infection rate was near Boulder, Colorado since the Colorado Division of Wildlife's website didnt indicate this fact, and he had mentioned at the MUCC sponsored Deer Symposium in September. He said, well....actually that area is in Wyoming and it is anecdotal, the data isnt published, then he forwarded me a document that was 6 years that mentioned this one area. So the question is what are we to believe???????????????


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Beavervet said:


> Thanks for pointing out more of Dr. Miller's research on CWD. He called me today because I was curious where the 50% infection rate was near Boulder, Colorado since the Colorado Division of Wildlife's website didnt indicate this fact, and he had mentioned at the MUCC sponsored Deer Symposium in September. He said, well....actually that area is in Wyoming and it is anecdotal, the data isnt published, then he forwarded me a document that was 6 years that mentioned this one area. So the question is what are we to believe???????????????


They must have gave this thread 4 stars because of munslerlndr last post and you proveing MILLERS FACTS REALLY AREN'T FACTS, WHEN PUT TO ANY KIND OF TEST. GO FIGURE.


----------



## scott kavanaugh

M1Garand said:


> They handled it in a way that was put into policy in 2002. Did you dispute it then? Write your legislator? So now that it was implemented, you have a huge issue with it. You continually post that you apparently have all the answers. Was your degree in biology, microbiology or epidemiology? I didn't think so, yet you know much more than those who do.
> 
> I don't always agree with what the NRC does either and question their logic too. But there are some very good biologists and other personnel who work for the DNR. I have nothing against baiting and I've done it myself. And I agree with the ban. I also agree more should be done than just banning bait, but the fact is that's where it stands. I'm sorry that it must've turned your hunting style upside down but you're gonna have to deal with the fact unless you go to the UP, you can't bait.


Migrand, No, what happened 1 year ago in todays world is obsolete. Why would I worry about what plan they put in place 6 years ago. That would be stupid, and a waste of time. I assumed they would update it, like anyone would outdated equipment. I'm sure their not useing the same computer equipment, oh wait , maybe our DNR is. No I don't have a degree in guessing.

I'T DIDN'T TURN MY STYLE OR AFFECT MY HUNTING STYLE AT ALL. I however am tired of these kind of maneuvers and do feel it affecting my sport and feel for all that it did affect. 

There are some good people that work for the DNR. But both those people and the majority of hunters in Michigan deserve better than what we have been getting out of the department in recent history. If we don't start holding them accountable this is how they will do everything , because they have and it works.

My degree is in common sense, nothing more, and I'll be the first one to admit I don't have enough of it. But I usually do know when something is this wrong, and something needs to be done. I might not always go at it the right way, but I will go at it.


----------



## fphilli1

Thanks for the biblical. Here in Michigan we hunt only white tail. The feed I am refering to is straight corn kernels just like they feed on in the fields. This is why I do not understand a ban in the Lower Penninsula for one deer that was captive and ate feed rather than natural un processd corn. I would like to know why the Michigan DNR did not restrict the baiting to natural food only?????


----------



## terry

fphilli1 said:


> Thanks for the biblical. Here in Michigan we hunt only white tail. The feed I am refering to is straight corn kernels just like they feed on in the fields. This is why I do not understand a ban in the Lower Penninsula for one deer that was captive and ate feed rather than natural un processd corn. I would like to know why the Michigan DNR did not restrict the baiting to natural food only?????



In addition, we note that you are using approximately 140 pounds of cracked
corn to flush your mixer used in the manufacture of animal feeds containing
prohibited material. This flushed material is fed to wild game including
deer, a ruminant animal.Feed material which may potentially contain
prohibited material should not be fed to ruminant animals which may become
part of the food chain.The above is not intended to be an all-inclusive list
of deviations fromthe regulations. As a manufacturer of materials intended
for animalfeed use, you are responsible for assuring that your overall
operation and the products you manufacture and distribute are in compliance
withthe law. We have enclosed a copy of FDA's Small Entity Compliance
Guideto assist you with complying with the regulation... blah, blah, blah...

http://www.fda.gov/foi/warning_letters/g1115d.pdf

==================================

Oral transmission and early lymphoid tropism of chronic wasting
diseasePrPres in mule deer fawns (Odocoileus hemionus )

Christina J. Sigurdson1, Elizabeth S. Williams2, Michael W. Miller3,Terry R.
Spraker1,4, Katherine I. O'Rourke5 and Edward A. Hoover1Department of
Pathology, College of Veterinary Medicine and BiomedicalSciences, Colorado
State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523- 1671, USA1Department of Veterinary
Sciences, University of Wyoming, 1174 SnowyRange Road, University of
Wyoming, Laramie, WY 82070, USA 2Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wildlife
Research Center, 317 WestProspect Road, Fort Collins, CO 80526-2097,
USA3Colorado State University Veterinary Diagnostic Laboratory, 300
WestDrake Road, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1671, USA4Animal Disease Research
Unit, Agricultural Research Service, USDepartment of Agriculture, 337 Bustad
Hall, Washington State University,Pullman, WA 99164-7030, USA5Author for
correspondence: Edward Hoover.Fax +1 970 491 0523.
[email protected]ule

deer fawns (Odocoileus hemionus) were inoculated orally with abrain
homogenate prepared from mule deer with naturally occurring chronic wasting
disease (CWD), a prion-induced transmissible spongiform encephalopathy.
Fawns were necropsied and examined for PrP res, the abnormal prion protein
isoform, at 10, 42, 53, 77, 78 and 80 days post-inoculation (p.i.) using an
immunohistochemistry assay modified to enhance sensitivity. PrPres was
detected in alimentary-tract-associatedl ymphoid tissues (one or more of the
following: retropharyngeal lymphnode, tonsil, Peyer's patch and ileocaecal
lymph node) as early as 42days p.i. and in all fawns examined thereafter (53
to 80 days p.i.). No PrPres staining was detected in lymphoid tissue of
three control fawns receiving a control brain inoculum, nor was PrPres
detectable in neural tissue of any fawn. PrPres-specific staining was
markedly enhanced by sequential tissue treatment with formic acid,
proteinase K and hydrated autoclaving prior to immunohistochemical staining
with monoclonalantibody F89/160.1.5. These results indicate that CWD PrP res
can be detected in lymphoid tissues draining the alimentary tract within a
few weeks after oral exposure to infectious prions and may reflect the
initial pathway of CWD infection in deer. The rapid infection of deer fawns
following exposure by the most plausible natural route is consistent with
the efficient horizontal transmission of CWD in nature and enables
accelerated studies of transmission and pathogenesis in the native species.

snip...

These results indicate that mule deer fawns develop detectable PrPres after
oral exposure to an inoculum containing CWD prions. In the earliest
post-exposure period, CWD PrPres was traced to the lymphoidtissues draining
the oral and intestinal mucosa (i.e. there tropharyngeal lymph nodes,
tonsil, ileal Peyer's patches and ileocaecal lymph nodes), which probably
received the highest initial exposure to the inoculum. Hadlow et al. (1982)
demonstrated scrapie agent in the tonsil, retropharyngeal and mesenteric
lymph nodes, ileumand spleen in a 10-month-old naturally infected lamb by
mouse bioassay. Eight of nine sheep had infectivity in the retropharyngeal
lymph node.He concluded that the tissue distribution suggested primary
infection via the gastrointestinal tract. The tissue distribution of PrPres
in the early stages of infection in the fawns is strikingly similar to that
seen in naturally infected sheep with scrapie. These findings supportoral
exposure as a natural route of CWD infection in deer and supportoral
inoculation as a reasonable exposure route for experimental studies of CWD.

snip...

http://vir.sgmjournals.org/cgi/content/full/80/10/2757

===================================

now, just what is in that deer feed? _ANIMAL PROTEIN_

Subject: MAD DEER/ELK DISEASE AND POTENTIAL SOURCES

Date: Sat, 25 May 2002 18:41:46 -0700 From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr."
Reply-To: BSE-LTo: BSE-L

8420-20.5% Antler DeveloperFor Deer and Game in the wildGuaranteed Analysis
Ingredients / Products Feeding Directions

snip...

_animal protein_

http://www.surefed.com/deer.htm

BODE'S GAME FEED SUPPLEMENT #400A RATION FOR DEERNET WEIGHT 50 POUNDS22.6
KG.

snip...

_animal protein_

http://www.bodefeed.com/prod7.htm

IngredientsGrain Products, Plant Protein Products, Processed Grain
By-Products,Forage Products, Roughage Products 15%, Molasses Products,

__Animal Protein Products__,

Monocalcium Phosphate, Dicalcium Pyosphate, Salt,Calcium Carbonate, Vitamin
A Acetate with D-activated Animal Sterol(source of Vitamin D3), Vitamin E
Supplement, Vitamin B12 Supplement,Riboflavin Supplement, Niacin Supplement,
Calcium Panothenate, CholineChloride, Folic Acid, Menadione Soduim Bisulfite
Complex, PyridoxineHydorchloride, Thiamine Mononitrate, d-Biotin, Manganous
Oxide, ZincOxide, Ferrous Carbonate, Calcium Iodate, Cobalt Carbonate,
DriedSacchoromyces Berevisiae Fermentation Solubles, Cellulose
gum,Artificial Flavors added.http://www.bodefeed.com/prod6.htm

===================================

MORE ANIMAL PROTEIN PRODUCTS FOR DEER

Bode's #1 Game PelletsA RATION FOR DEERF3153GUARANTEED ANALYSISCrude Protein
(Min) 16%Crude Fat (Min) 2.0%Crude Fiber (Max) 19%Calcium (Ca) (Min)
1.25%Calcium (Ca) (Max) 1.75%Phosphorus (P) (Min) 1.0%Salt (Min) .30%Salt
(Max) .70%IngredientsGrain Products, Plant Protein Products, Processed Grain
By-Products,Forage Products, Roughage Products, 15% Molasses Products,

__Animal Protein Products__,

Monocalcium Phosphate, Dicalcium Phosphate, Salt,Calcium Carbonate, Vitamin
A Acetate with D-activated Animal Sterol(source of Vitamin D3) Vitamin E
Supplement, Vitamin B12 Supplement,Roboflavin Supplement, Niacin Supplement,
Calcium Pantothenate, CholineChloride, Folic Acid, Menadione Sodium
Bisulfite Complex, PyridoxineHydrochloride, Thiamine Mononitrate, e -
Biotin, Manganous Oxide, ZincOxide, Ferrous Carbonate, Calcium Iodate,
Cobalt Carbonate, DriedSaccharyomyces Cerevisiae Fermentation Solubles,
Cellulose gum,Artificial Flavors added.FEEDING DIRECTIONSFeed as Creep Feed
with Normal Diet

http://www.bodefeed.com/prod8.htm

INGREDIENTS

Grain Products, Roughage Products (not more than 35%), Processed
GrainBy-Products, Plant Protein Products, Forage Products,

__Animal Protein Products__,

L-Lysine, Calcium Carbonate, Salt, Monocalcium/DicalciumPhosphate, Yeast
Culture, Magnesium Oxide, Cobalt Carbonate, BasicCopper Chloride, Manganese
Sulfate, Manganous Oxide, Sodium Selenite,Zinc Sulfate, Zinc Oxide, Sodium
Selenite, Potassium Iodide,Ethylenediamine Dihydriodide, Vitamin E
Supplement, Vitamin ASupplement, Vitamin D3 Supplement, Mineral Oil, Mold
Inhibitor, CalciumLignin Sulfonate, Vitamin B12 Supplement, Menadione Sodium
BisulfiteComplex, Calcium Pantothenate, Riboflavin, Niacin, Biotin, Folic
Acid,Pyridoxine Hydrochloride, Mineral Oil, Chromium Tripicolinate

DIRECTIONS FOR USE

Deer Builder Pellets is designed to be fed to deer under rangeconditions or
deer that require higher levels of protein. Feed to deerduring gestation,
fawning, lactation, antler growth and pre-rut, allphases which require a
higher level of nutrition. Provide adequateamounts of good quality roughage
and fresh water at all times.

http://www.profilenutrition.com/Products/Specialty/deer_builder_pellets.html

===================================================



snip...end...full text ;

2003D-0186 Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In
Animal Feed

EMC 1 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol #: 1

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/Jun03/060903/060903.htm

2003D-0186 Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In
Animal Feed

EMC 7 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol #: 1

2003D-0186 Guidance for Industry: Use of Material From Deer and Elk In
Animal Feed

EMC 7 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol #: 1

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/03/oct03/100203/100203.htm

01N-0423 Substances Prohibited from use in animal food/Feed Ruminant

APE 5 National Renderers Association, Inc. Vol#: 2

APE 6 Animal Protein Producers Industry Vol#: 2

APE 7 Darling International Inc. Vol#: 2

EMC 1 Terry S. Singeltary Sr. Vol#: 3

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/dailys/01/Oct01/101501/101501.htm



snip...


Subject: DOCKET-- 03D-0186 -- FDA Issues Draft Guidance on Use of Material From Deer and Elk in Animal Feed; Availability
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 11:47:37 -0500
From: "Terry S. Singeltary Sr." To: [email protected]

Greetings FDA,

i would kindly like to comment on;

Docket 03D-0186

FDA Issues Draft Guidance on Use of Material From Deer and Elk in Animal Feed; Availability

Several factors on this apparent voluntary proposal disturbs me greatly, please allow me to point them out;



full text ;


http://madcowfeed.blogspot.com/2008/07/docket-03d-0186-fda-issues-draft.html



TSS


----------

