# Wisconsin baiting



## bigdaddypife

I was looking at the EAB program in wisconsin and stumbled upon their baiting regulations. To the best of my knowledge, they found CWD in their wild herd. But they only banned baiting around that specific area. Now, why do you think they would go that route, and Michigan banned baiting in the entire lower peninsula after finding no CWD infected deer in the wild herd (one in captivity in Kent county)??

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/regs/DeerBFRegulations.pdf
http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/regs/Deer08regs44-47.pdf

Here is the Illinois CWD report: they are a no bait state

http://www.dnr.state.il.us/cwd/2006-2007 CWD Annual Report.pdf
http://www.dnr.state.il.us/cwd/map.pdf

So we have wisconsin with CWD in its herd but you can bait outside the CWD area. Illinois with CWD in it's herd but you can't bait. Michigan with no CWD in it's herd, but you can't bait the entire lower peninsula, and Indiana with no CWD in its herd and you can bait. Am I reading this right???


----------



## Wishn I was fishn

From what i have heard they reinstated baiting in several areas as a result of political pressure. I'm not sure of the exact details however, but do n=know that the original ban covered a much larger area.


----------



## swampbuck

Wisconsin now realises they made a mistake, The new management plan seeks to make it statewide.

"&#9830;​​Pursuing a statewide ban on the feeding
and baiting of deer to reduce the risk of
transmission of CWD or other serious cervid​
diseases in new areas"

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/org/land/wildlife/whealth/issues/cwd/doc/executive_summary.pdf


----------



## Bob S

bigdaddypife said:


> I was looking at the EAB program in wisconsin and stumbled upon their baiting regulations. To the best of my knowledge, they found CWD in their wild herd. But they only banned baiting around that specific area. Now, why do you think they would go that route,


The WI-DNR banned baiting statewide. The WI Legislature overruled their action and reinstated baiting in the northern portion of the state. The legislature gave in to whining hunters over the recommendations of the DNR.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Since there have been no cases of CWD confirmed in the zones that allow baiting since the legislature over-ruled the knee-jerk reaction of the WDNR, it would appear that they made the correct decision. All of the new cases of CWD that have been documented in Wisconsin since 2002 have occurred within the eradication zone where baiting is prohibited. Neither the MDNR or the WDNR have provided any scientific basis to justify a baiting ban in areas where CWD or TB are not already present.


----------



## Pinefarm

The reason for the current ban is that nobody is 100% certain of it's scope. If, after a few years of testing many wild deer no CWD shows up, things are always subject to change.

Don't be shocked if the NRC re-instates some form of baiting in 2010, 2011 or 2012. Perhaps loose grains only and an expanded baited zone, like 30'x30', instead of 10'x10'. I don't see a good future for carrots or beets as bait IMHO.

Also don't be shocked if, after 2-3 years of hunting without bait, a substantial crop of new hunters makes the choice to never bait again, after their positive experiences of hunting without bait, possibly for the first time ever. This will apply especially to a large number of more serious archery hunters IMHO.
It will dawn on many hunters that their bowhunting experience is better without bait, especially with their sightings of bucks older than 1.5 years old.
I suspect that casual rifle hunters that hunt only a few days a year will gravitate back to bait the moment it's possibly re-legalized. Again, my opinion.


----------



## swampbuck

Munsterlndr said:


> Since there have been no cases of CWD confirmed in the zones that allow baiting since the legislature over-ruled the knee-jerk reaction of the WDNR, it would appear that they made the correct decision. All of the new cases of CWD that have been documented in Wisconsin since 2002 have occurred within the eradication zone where baiting is prohibited. Neither the MDNR or the WDNR have provided any scientific basis to justify a baiting ban in areas where CWD or TB are not already present.


With the extended incubation period of CWD its to early to know if it has spread, but apparently the Wisc DNR does not think its worth the risk.

As far as tb, The hot zone was expanded in alcona county last year, And then there was the owosso deer that they still dont have the explanation for.


----------



## Pinefarm

Wisconsin DNR Weekly News Article
Baiting and feeding ban goes into effect in Marathon and Wood counties Dec. 15, 2008

Weekly News Article Published: November 25, 2008 by the Central Office

MADISON &#65533; The Department of Natural Resources announced today that, in accordance with existing state law, a baiting and feeding ban on white tailed deer will go into effect on December 15, 2008 in Marathon and Wood counties. The action is being taken because a CWD-positive white-tailed deer was confirmed by the Department of Agriculture, Trade and Consumer Protection on a 119-acre shooting preserve in Portage County. Baiting and feeding of deer was banned in Portage County several years ago due to confirmation of CWD positive deer on a deer farm near Almond in September 2002.

Marathon and Wood counties are within a 10-mile radius of the Junction City deer farm on which this CWD-positive deer was confirmed. State law requires that counties or portions of counties within a 10-mile radius of a game farm or free-ranging CWD-positive are included in the baiting and feeding prohibition. With the addition of Marathon and Wood, baiting and feeding of deer is banned in 28 Wisconsin counties.

&#65533;The discovery of a new CWD case in another Wisconsin county is disappointing,&#65533; said DNR Secretary Matt Frank. &#65533;As required by state law, we are extending the ban on baiting and feeding of deer to Marathon and Wood counties to reduce the risk of further disease transmission,&#65533; Frank said.

&#65533;Baiting and feeding of deer unnecessarily increases the risk of spreading CWD and tuberculosis (TB) to our wild deer herd and also spreading TB to the state&#65533;s dairy herd. Animal health is important to preserving our great hunting tradition and our dairy industry,&#65533; Frank said. TB in Minnesota&#65533;s deer herd has led to expensive dairy herd quarantines, and in just the last few months, CWD has been identified for the first time in Michigan&#65533;s deer herd.

Frank added, &#65533;Baiting and feeding also contributes to higher deer populations which threaten the regeneration of our forests and, in turn, Wisconsin&#65533;s forest-based industries And it leads to more car-deer collisions,&#65533; Frank said.

Effective December 15, 2008, hunters can no longer use bait to hunt deer in Marathon and Wood counties. The feeding of deer in these counties is prohibited as well. Individuals can still feed birds and small mammals provided the feeding devices are at a sufficient height or design to prevent access by deer and the feeding device is within 50 yards of a human dwelling.

The 28 counties in which baiting and feeding of white tailed deer is banned include: Adams, Calumet, Columbia, Crawford, Dane, Dodge, Grant, Green, Iowa, Jefferson, Juneau, Kenosha, Lafayette, Manitowoc, Marathon (effective 12/15/08,) Marquette, Milwaukee, Portage, Racine, Richland, Rock, Sauk, Sheboygan, Vernon, Walworth, Waukesha, Waushara, and Wood (effective 12/15/08) counties.

In the past two years, the case for prohibiting baiting and feeding deer in Wisconsin has been strengthened by additional research into deer disease transmission and the behavioral responses of deer to the repeated placement of small volumes of food. Read a DNR baiting and feeding report (pdf) on the DNR Web site.

In cooperation with Wisconsin Public Television&#65533;s Dan Small, the department has also produced a short video that explores the many issues associated with baiting and feeding. For radio reporters, Chief Conservation Warden Randy Stark has recorded a sound bite on the risks of baiting and feeding on herd and forest health.

A map of affected counties and rule specifics are on the department&#65533;s Web site and will be updated December 15 to include Wood and Marathon counties.

FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT: Tom Hauge, Director, Bureau of Wildlife Management (608) 266-2193; or Bill Delanis, Chief, Wildlife Health Section (608) 266-3143

Copyright 2008 Wisconsin DNR. All Rights Reserved.


----------



## Tom Morang

Here is the latest information (11-18-08) about baiting the WI DNR has issued in video format.............tm


http://media2.wi.gov/DNR/Viewer/Vie...ype=WM64Lite&overridePort25PluginInstall=true


----------



## Mid-Michigan Rick

No baiting in Indiana. Think it is a $1,000 fine there.


----------



## Pinefarm

Tom,
That's a great video clip.


----------



## fairfax1

Ouch! Ouch!!

Quotes like those below are gonna sink the practice of using Wisconsin's experience as support for the continued practice of baiting in Michigan. The anti-ban contingent has repeatedley used Wisconsin's 'hot zone' approach to banning bait as the preferred method.

It appears Wisconsin has a very similar attitude towards fearing transmissible diseases and fearing the effects baiting has in aiding transmission.

For example: 

"Baiting and feeding of deer unnecessarily increases the risk of spreading CWD and tuberculosis (TB) to our wild deer herd and also spreading TB to the state&#65533;s dairy herd. Animal health is important to preserving our great hunting tradition and our dairy industry,&#65533; Frank said. TB in Minnesota&#65533;s deer herd has led to expensive dairy herd quarantines.........

_"Frank added, &#65533;Baiting and feeding also contributes to higher deer populations which threaten the regeneration of our forests and, in turn, Wisconsin&#65533;s forest-based industries And it leads to more car-deer collisions,&#65533; Frank said."_

_"In the past two years, the case for prohibiting baiting and feeding deer in Wisconsin has been strengthened by additional research into deer disease transmission and the behavioral responses of deer to the repeated placement of small volumes of food."_
..................

Well, I guess the anti-ban folks could go to Indiana's practices to support their cause..............uh, wait a minute, scratch that.......in Indiana baiting violates their "Fair Chase" laws.


----------



## Tom Morang

Pinefarm said:


> Tom,
> That's a great video clip.


Yep, and up to date.


----------



## scott kavanaugh

fairfax1 said:


> Ouch! Ouch!!
> 
> Quotes like those below are gonna sink the practice of using Wisconsin's experience as support for the continued practice of baiting in Michigan. The anti-ban contingent has repeatedley used Wisconsin's 'hot zone' approach to banning bait as the preferred method.
> 
> It appears Wisconsin has a very similar attitude towards fearing transmissible diseases and fearing the effects baiting has in aiding transmission.
> 
> For example:
> 
> "Baiting and feeding of deer unnecessarily increases the risk of spreading CWD and tuberculosis (TB) to our wild deer herd and also spreading TB to the state&#65533;s dairy herd. Animal health is important to preserving our great hunting tradition and our dairy industry,&#65533; Frank said. TB in Minnesota&#65533;s deer herd has led to expensive dairy herd quarantines.........
> 
> _"Frank added, &#65533;Baiting and feeding also contributes to higher deer populations which threaten the regeneration of our forests and, in turn, Wisconsin&#65533;s forest-based industries And it leads to more car-deer collisions,&#65533; Frank said."_
> 
> _"In the past two years, the case for prohibiting baiting and feeding deer in Wisconsin has been strengthened by additional research into deer disease transmission and the behavioral responses of deer to the repeated placement of small volumes of food."_
> ..................
> 
> Well, I guess the anti-ban folks could go to Indiana's practices to support their cause..............uh, wait a minute, scratch that.......in Indiana baiting violates their "Fair Chase" laws.




Um fairfax don't mean to burst anyones (ooh ooh look, I told you so moment), but we don't even have CWD in our wild deer herd. Anybody still in touch with that.:lol::lol:

Further more, nobody was touting the Wisconsin DNR as being rocket scientist either. We thought the legislators did the right thing handing them their head. Sounds like the legislators need to get a grip on the deer farms, co-ops, and such over there and then baiting of course will become a non-issue!


----------



## swampbuck

1-Nodody knows if theyre are free range deer that have CWD in Michigan, Unless you have a crystal ball.

2-CWD in wisconsin did not originate on a game farm. It started in a QDM AREA.


----------



## Munsterlndr

fairfax1 said:


> "Baiting and feeding of deer unnecessarily increases the risk of spreading CWD and tuberculosis (TB) to our wild deer herd and also spreading TB to the state&#65533;s dairy herd.




The premise behind this statement is that baiting and supplemental feeding causes unnatural concentrations of deer, which increase the potential for spreading disease. I accept that premise as logical. What I don't understand is how anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty can accept this premise regarding baiting but maintain that food plots have some mystical, magical difference that prevents them from spreading disease, when deer are unnaturally concentrated in them. You can't have one without the other, both concentrate deer and both increase the potential for the spread of disease IF IT IS PRESENT. CWD and TB don't just spontaneously appear (unless it's in a captive cervid operation in Kent Co. ) Ban baiting and discourage food plotting in areas where disease is known to be present. In areas where disease is not known to be present, allow both to be used as legal means of targeting deer. 



fairfax1 said:


> _"Frank added, &#65533;Baiting and feeding also contributes to higher deer populations which threaten the regeneration of our forests and, in turn, Wisconsin&#65533;s forest-based industries And it leads to more car-deer collisions,&#65533; Frank said."_




If the small quantities of bait that are distributed under the limits that have been imposed in Michigan and Wisconsin are enough to contribute to higher deer populations, then just what exactly is the impact of the millions of pounds of high quality forage that is provided by food plots doing? How can you say baiting results in over populated deer herds without admitting that food plots have an even greater potential to cause over-population, unless you are engaging in hypocrisy of epic proportions? :lol:



fairfax1 said:


> _"In the past two years, the case for prohibiting baiting and feeding deer in Wisconsin has been strengthened by additional research into deer disease transmission and the behavioral responses of deer to the repeated placement of small volumes of food." _




Did any of you actually read the study that he's referring to or are you just taking his word for it regarding what it indicated? The study in question actually does less in terms of strengthening the case for prohibiting baiting then it does in indicating that the limits on the amounts of bait that have been imposed actually have results that are counter-intuitive to what was anticipated. 

I found the video that was posted above to be long on opinion and hyperbole and short on providing any scientific basis for what is proposed.


----------



## Surf and Turf

swampbuck said:


> 1-Nodody knows if theyre are free range deer that have CWD in Michigan, Unless you have a crystal ball.
> 
> 2-CWD in wisconsin did not originate on a game farm. It started in a QDM AREA.


 This says that it started it a QDM area. Could this be true? If so, this would lead me to think food plots could be to blame for the spread. If this is true everyone is in trouble.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Surf and Turf said:


> This says that it started it a QDM area. Could this be true? If so, this would lead me to think food plots could be to blame for the spread. If this is true everyone is in trouble.


Food plots could certainly facilitated the spread but it was more likely due to increased density resulting from providing readily available food in private land locations with little hunting pressure. In addition, it's suspected that the QDM properties in the vicinity of the index case in Wisconsin were using pelletized supplemental proteins that may have had animal protein included in them. It is just a theory, though.


----------



## swampbuck

Surf and Turf said:


> This says that it started it a QDM area. Could this be true? If so, this would lead me to think food plots could be to blame for the spread. If this is true everyone is in trouble.





> "Then in February 2002, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources (DNR) announced that chronic wasting disease (CWD) had been discovered in Town of Vermont in three hunter-killed deer from the November 2001 gun season. The deer were taken smack in the middle of these lands being managed for trophy bucks. A later sampling of 500 deer found another 15 with CWD, and in fact 11 of the 18 CWD deer were clustered right on or around these QDM lands"
> 
> http://www.outdoorlife.com/article/Hunting/Deer-Hunting-at-Risk-in-the-Heartland


----------



## Surf and Turf

wow, very interesting. I used to put lucky buck out for the deer. Guess I won't be dong that anymore. I realize that it isn't bonemeal, but never the less, it still makes one wonder about all the minerial that is available out there. I'm not going to say anymore, the article pretty much tells what qdm can do if not done properly.


----------



## fairfax1

You guys all know that we're not having a real debate on CWD/Bait etc....don't you?

Naw, what we're doing is sorta like going to the driving range: Hit a few balls. Don't expect to score. It's exercise. Practice. 

It's fun. 

And, I notice, it's the same posters on the range all the time. Few new ones show up. Although, by my probably somewhat selective perception the new ones who do briefly fling in a comment seem to support the bait-ban. That's encouraging.

So, with that said. Let's hit a few balls

In post #16 above the poster comments on quotes highlighted from another post.

Specifically, commenting on this quote from a Wisconsin biologist: 
"Baiting and feeding of deer unnecessarily increases the risk of spreading CWD and tuberculosis (TB) to our wild deer herd and also spreading TB to the state&#65533;s dairy herd." 

The poster responds: _"Ban baiting and discourage food plotting in areas where disease is known to be present. In areas where disease is not known to be present, allow both to be used as legal means of targeting deer."_

Ignoring the silliness of the position that _"a clover field is a pile of beets_" the real hook in the above sentiment is "where disease is known to be present". That, friends, is the problem. It ain't that simple. 

The index case in Kent county popped up in an 'unknown' manner. Shipments out of that facility went to 17 counties throughout Michigan (as posted on M-S by someone). So, at this time, it is not known if it is in more animals outside of Kent County. But that the risk is now greater than before must be conceded by anyone with a shred--or more--- of intellectual honesty.

Accordingly, if the risk is greater then prudence demands, stewardship demands, that the practice of baiting be curbed because it unnecessairily concentrates animals to a very signficant degree. That is the consensus of the responsible scientific community. 


The poster also observes:
"_If the small quantities of bait that are distributed under the limits that have been imposed in Michigan and Wisconsin.........."_

Ah, would that it be so, that baiting ---as actually practiced---always (or nearly always) followed the 2-gallon rule. Unfortunately, following the rule was the exception.
Whatever economic metric one uses for measuring the size of the bait-trade, be it $10 million or $50 million, it is clear we can't reach either of those numbers without baiting well in excess of the 2-gallon limitation....even if only high-priced corn was used and not the much cheaper and bulkier apples, carrots, turnips, beets. That stuff was being bought in quantity....where was it going?

Then the poster in a rhetorical flourish notes:
_"How can you say baiting results in over populated deer herds without admitting that food plots have an even greater potential to cause over-population, unless you are engaging in hypocrisy of epic proportions?" _

First, I didn't say baiting causes over populaiton. The Wisconsin biologist did. However, I would opine that the _'recreational feeding'_ portion of the bait phenomena probably did have an impact, to some degree, on the population. Tho likely not in an epic proportion. :coolgleam





__________________


----------



## Surf and Turf

fairfax, great post! You made some very good points. All of the things on these post can be spun into how someone whats to interpret them. A anti-baiter spins reports one and baiters spin the opposite. I just think that there is a middle ground that at some point we all need to come together so that deer hunting in Michigan can be enjoyed by all again. The dept of ag is what we need to be attacking. They are the ones responsable for the control of these deer farms that are jepeordizing our hunting future. Both TB and CWD were introduced to our states deer by deer farms. With that said, I think we step back and try to look at the picture. Whether you bait or feed deer, grow feed plots, or plant trees, these are all methods of attracting deer. If all the hunters were to stop this, the deer are still going to congrigate in large numbers in farm fields, silage pits, and feed lots. We need the farmers, therefore in my area, the deer will always flock to these corn fields. I feel the answer is to irraticate the deer, population control yes. My point is no matter what is some areas, at certain times of the year, deer are always going to congrigate in some big numbers.


----------



## scott kavanaugh

Let me take a swing, I'd rather hit a baseball though, I kinda like sports that well, there is a little dirt involved.

Hyping cwd and placeing a baiting ban on the entire L.P. which together caused literally 10s of thousands of hunters not to even go into the Michigan woods this year, and maybe never again. These moves have the potential to do more damage to michigans deer herd than baiting ever has or could ever do, if you buy into the cwd threat, not to mention the sport, if you buy into reality.


----------



## fairfax1

In post #22, the poster offers:

_"The dept of ag is what we need to be attacking. They are the ones responsable for the control of these deer farms that are jepeordizing our hunting future. Both TB and CWD were introduced to our states deer by deer farms."_

Surely, there is little dissent about the cervid guys having had sloppiness in some of their operations, and the DofA not playing their best ball. But then, most any farm operation has a quantity of violations they could be dinged for. Believe me, no animal farmer---dairy, beef, hogs----wants an inspection by the DofA.

The cervid-farm origination of this occurrence should not be surprising. But even so, CWD would get here sooner or later anyway. I've posted well before this August event that CWD from Illinois is marching towards us.

In fact, the last occurrence (that I'm aware of) near the Illinois River west of Joliet is, if memory serves, only about 45 miles from the 50-mile 'trip-wire' (think IL Rte. 394 as the 'wire'). Once some poor CWD infected deer gets smacked by a car along 394 near Sauk Village, Illinois, and gets tested, well the ban would have triggered anyway. Bam! We'd be in the same pickle. 

And the same complaints by the baiting community would have emerged:
"_It's in friggin' Illinois, it ain't even in Michigan! Gimme a break!" 
"It's XXXX-hunnert miles from my stump in Roscommon, gimme a break!" 
"It's only one lousy deer, none others have tested positive that close to our border. Gimme a break!"_

The poster also observed: _"........ the deer are still going to congrigate in large numbers in farm fields, silage pits, and feed lots...... I feel the answer is to irraticate the deer, population control yes. My point is no matter what is some areas, at certain times of the year, deer are always going to congrigate in some big numbers."_

Yes, deer will do that. We can't stop that with any method that doesn't unreasonably compromise our agricultural practices . But that is not the point of the bait ban. The point is: Baiting unnecessarily concentrates the animals. 

We cannot control deer from flocking to your neighbors 50-acre standing corn in January, or grazing volunteer seedlings from last seasons wheat combining. But, we most surely can, and the State is attempting to, control the congregating over placed bait foodstuffs. 

It is right we do so. Now. Or eventually in the forseeable future when that sick deer meets his maker on an Illinois highway. 


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

On another day let's tee-up your two comments:
A. _Cervid farms brought TB to northern Michigan._ (????) That's new to me.
B. _Eradicating the herd in an infected area._ (you think the bait ban is controversial? you ain't seen nuthin' yet if the State requires eradication)


----------



## Surf and Turf

fairfax, 1980 a deer from a deer farm in Atlanta that was TB positive got loose in the wild deer herd. Attempted erratication was put into place in the TB zone at that time in about 85. I have heard threats of the same the thing with the cwd. I hope if that happenes they do it the same way. It sounds like the slp is where the most deer are anyway according to pinefarm. I think my area is overpopulated the way things used to be. I used to see about 10 to 15 deer per day. Never more than 6 or 8 around my corn feeder. That was last year. This year, hunted 6 days, saw 4 deer. They came out to the corn field. I have also read articles by other vets and scientist that they are not convinced that baiting will increase the spread of cwd. Would say that more say it does increase, but leads me to believe that they still are not sure. As far as farmers being exempt from the responsablity of the spread of cwd. There are things that can be done, Fences around pit silos should be a must. Even if is for thier own protection. I know of 3 farms near me that have done this. As far as the fields go, Those could be fenced as well. 8 foot high. Why is it that the baiters are the only ones who have to be pentalized for something they did not create? They didn't bring this disease into Michigan, if it is truely here. Now that baiting is no longer legal, the anti-baiters think all their problems are solved.


----------



## Munsterlndr

FF -

I always enjoy the spin you put on things. Silly to compare the potential impact of a clover field and a pile of beets? How about a "kill" plot of sugar beets, that is sprayed with chemicals just prior to the season in an effort to "sweeten" the foliage, to insure that the deer is drawn exactly to the right spot, as advocated by MS's resident food plot guru? Still silly to compare a food plot with bait? 

Come on, your an intelligent guy. I realize that it pains you to admit it, but the parallels in terms of the potential for the spread of disease between bait and food plots are many and are compelling. Anyone that continues to deny that food plots have a similar potential for the spread of disease as bait, is simply living in la-la land. 

I must admit that I admire yours and Bob's efforts to paint a picture of rampant abuse of baiting based on absolutely no evidence other than that of an extremely limited anecdotal nature. Something like 350,000 Michigan hunters have used bait in the past, yet the fact that over a number of years you & Bob may have witnessed maybe a hundred over sized bait piles leads you to the conclusion that a majority of Michigan hunters abused the bait ban. Sorry, that argument is hardly compelling. Your premise that the dollar value of the loss to agriculture resulting from the baiting ban, is an indicator of whether legal amounts were used is also totally specious. 

350,000 x 90 x 2 = 63 million gallons of bait and that is only if an individual is baiting just one stand. Many hunters bait multiple stands, which would legally increase the total volume of bait used. That figure does not even take into account the millions of individuals who previously used bait for recreational viewing purposes. 

The fact of the matter is, you have no idea what percentage of baiter's cooperated with the bait limits. Since the vast majority of it took place on private land, it's unlikely that you or Bob or anybody else would have the slightest idea of what the truth is. So why the attempt to paint the picture that baiting was grossly abused except as an attempt to engage in spin?

The only compelling evidence that we have on this topic, is from a published DNR report. It stated that it was the opinion of DNR field personnel that most of the hunters in area 452 were in compliance with the baiting limits that were imposed there. So were the DNR personnel lying when they voiced this opinion? Trying to cover up the rampant abuse because they were taking kick-backs from the sugar beet growers? :yikes: 

Keep on spinning, it's always an entertaining read.


----------



## scott kavanaugh

fairfax1 said:


> In post #22, the poster offers:
> 
> _"The dept of ag is what we need to be attacking. They are the ones responsable for the control of these deer farms that are jepeordizing our hunting future. Both TB and CWD were introduced to our states deer by deer farms."_
> 
> Surely, there is little dissent about the cervid guys having had sloppiness in some of their operations, and the DofA not playing their best ball. But then, most any farm operation has a quantity of violations they could be dinged for. Believe me, no animal farmer---dairy, beef, hogs----wants an inspection by the DofA.
> 
> The cervid-farm origination of this occurrence should not be surprising. But even so, CWD would get here sooner or later anyway. I've posted well before this August event that CWD from Illinois is marching towards us.
> 
> In fact, the last occurrence (that I'm aware of) near the Illinois River west of Joliet is, if memory serves, only about 45 miles from the 50-mile 'trip-wire' (think IL Rte. 394 as the 'wire'). Once some poor CWD infected deer gets smacked by a car along 394 near Sauk Village, Illinois, and gets tested, well the ban would have triggered anyway. Bam! We'd be in the same pickle.
> 
> And the same complaints by the baiting community would have emerged:
> "_It's in friggin' Illinois, it ain't even in Michigan! Gimme a break!" _
> _"It's XXXX-hunnert miles from my stump in Roscommon, gimme a break!" _
> _"It's only one lousy deer, none others have tested positive that close to our border. Gimme a break!"_
> 
> The poster also observed: _"........ the deer are still going to congrigate in large numbers in farm fields, silage pits, and feed lots...... I feel the answer is to irraticate the deer, population control yes. My point is no matter what is some areas, at certain times of the year, deer are always going to congrigate in some big numbers."_
> 
> Yes, deer will do that. We can't stop that with any method that doesn't unreasonably compromise our agricultural practices . But that is not the point of the bait ban. The point is: Baiting unnecessarily concentrates the animals.
> 
> We cannot control deer from flocking to your neighbors 50-acre standing corn in January, or grazing volunteer seedlings from last seasons wheat combining. But, we most surely can, and the State is attempting to, control the congregating over placed bait foodstuffs.
> 
> It is right we do so. Now. Or eventually in the forseeable future when that sick deer meets his maker on an Illinois highway.
> 
> 
> ..................
> 
> On another day let's tee-up your two comments:
> A. _Cervid farms brought TB to northern Michigan._ (????) That's new to me.
> B. _Eradicating the herd in an infected area._ (you think the bait ban is controversial? you ain't seen nuthin' yet if the State requires eradication)


It is a good thing that michigans dnr/nrc showed their inability to make good decisions and update plans with current information. This will allow us to get the proper means in place to control their stupidity, before an actual problem presents itself. It also will allow us to have the checks in place for imaginary lines drawn in the sand for political reasons. I think It's going to prove to be a very eye opening mistake as the folks who initiated this look back at it.


----------



## 6inchtrack

If you would please, I would really like to read your thoughts on a true whitetail management plan for the State of Michigan, if you were in this management.
Please, if you would, either post or PM me.

6


----------



## traditional

fairfax1 said:


> In post #22, the poster offers:
> 
> _"The dept of ag is what we need to be attacking. They are the ones responsable for the control of these deer farms that are jepeordizing our hunting future. Both TB and CWD were introduced to our states deer by deer farms."_
> 
> Surely, there is little dissent about the cervid guys having had sloppiness in some of their operations, and the DofA not playing their best ball. But then, most any farm operation has a quantity of violations they could be dinged for. Believe me, no animal farmer---dairy, beef, hogs----wants an inspection by the DofA.
> 
> The cervid-farm origination of this occurrence should not be surprising. But even so, CWD would get here sooner or later anyway. I've posted well before this August event that CWD from Illinois is marching towards us.
> 
> In fact, the last occurrence (that I'm aware of) near the Illinois River west of Joliet is, if memory serves, only about 45 miles from the 50-mile 'trip-wire' (think IL Rte. 394 as the 'wire'). Once some poor CWD infected deer gets smacked by a car along 394 near Sauk Village, Illinois, and gets tested, well the ban would have triggered anyway. Bam! We'd be in the same pickle.
> 
> And the same complaints by the baiting community would have emerged:
> "_It's in friggin' Illinois, it ain't even in Michigan! Gimme a break!"
> "It's XXXX-hunnert miles from my stump in Roscommon, gimme a break!"
> "It's only one lousy deer, none others have tested positive that close to our border. Gimme a break!"_
> 
> The poster also observed: _"........ the deer are still going to congrigate in large numbers in farm fields, silage pits, and feed lots...... I feel the answer is to irraticate the deer, population control yes. My point is no matter what is some areas, at certain times of the year, deer are always going to congrigate in some big numbers."_
> 
> Yes, deer will do that. We can't stop that with any method that doesn't unreasonably compromise our agricultural practices . But that is not the point of the bait ban. The point is: Baiting unnecessarily concentrates the animals.
> 
> We cannot control deer from flocking to your neighbors 50-acre standing corn in January, or grazing volunteer seedlings from last seasons wheat combining. But, we most surely can, and the State is attempting to, control the congregating over placed bait foodstuffs.
> 
> It is right we do so. Now. Or eventually in the forseeable future when that sick deer meets his maker on an Illinois highway.
> 
> 
> ..................
> 
> On another day let's tee-up your two comments:
> A. _Cervid farms brought TB to northern Michigan._ (????) That's new to me.
> B. _Eradicating the herd in an infected area._ (you think the bait ban is controversial? you ain't seen nuthin' yet if the State requires eradication)



Fairfax you say CWD will be coming in from Illinois. How could that be???
Illinois does not allow baiting.


----------



## Whit1

6inchtrack said:


> If you would please, I would really like to read your thoughts on a true whitetail management plan for the State of Michigan, if you were in this management.
> Please, if you would, either post or PM me.
> 
> 6


 
If it is posted please do so in another thread rather than this one.


----------



## Trophy Specialist

Mid-Michigan Rick said:


> No baiting in Indiana. Think it is a $1,000 fine there.


While hunting over bait is technically illegal in Indiana they can feed deer any amount they want. From what I've seen, I'd bet that more deer feed is put out down there than in MI. There are a lot of states where baiting is illegal, but feeding game is perfectly fine.


----------



## fairfax1

Post #26 above is somewhat like a the steam tables at Country Buffet....so much to choose from. I'll pick these:

_Silly to compare the potential impact of a clover field and a pile of beets? How about a "kill" plot of sugar beets, that is sprayed with chemicals just prior to the season in an effort to "sweeten" the foliage......."_
First, the sillines comment - I've too often read remarks such as "[I_]your 1 acre_ _of ladino clover is exactly the same as a bait pile"._ [/I]Well, that is stretching it a bit, don't you think? There are similarities, undeniably; but there are significant and defining differences. So the argument often seems to skirt the line between sense and nonsense. No disparagment directed to your posts.
(I loved the post made by somebody sometime ago countering the bait=plot argument..."_if they are exactly the same let me show you a photo of each and see if you can tell which is which"._

Second....._'Kill plots'_. I agree the whole concept of "kill plots" is an embarassment. Food plotting, as I think it should be, is to enhance the habitat, to ensure the deer using your ground have access to more nutritious and more plentiful browse & forage over a longer period of time than if the habitat was just left alone. 
I do think options such as tuber forages could be restricted....especially if the bait-ban stays in place. To me that seems a credible extension of the intent to limit unnecessary saliva exchanges. 
On my ground we will continue to do foodplots, three of them - 1acre/.9acre/.6acre --but for next season they will be clover or chicory or wheat or rye or rape. We'll no longer put in turnips unless it is just the forage types and not the tuber type.
Then the argument that our plotting is raising the population (I think poster SK offered that). We do have a lot of deer, and we kill a lot of deer. The animals using our ground use all neighboring ground (it lies on a substantial rivercourse) and they use the nearby agricultural fields. We can control ---to some degree--- only deer that step onto our ground. We will continue to have a lot of deer in the neighborhood until more of my good neighbors take a more aggressive role towards harvesting does. (encouragingly, they are getting much better) 


Then the poster noted: _"I must admit that I admire yours and Bob's efforts to paint a picture of rampant abuse of baiting based on absolutely no evidence other than that of an extremely limited anecdotal nature. Something like 350,000 Michigan hunters have used bait in the past, yet the fact that over a number of years you & Bob may have witnessed maybe a hundred over sized bait piles leads you to the conclusion that a majority of Michigan hunters abused the bait ban. Sorry, that argument is hardly compelling." _

We've had this exchange before. I ain't movin' from my belief: _Baiting quantities, as acutally practiced in Michigan, were near universally abused_. I admit I have only my narrrow anecdotal observations to convince me. But, I'm comfortable that my conclusions are grounded enough.

In truth though, I'm not sure you really believe that the vast majority of baiting --or bait use---was legal. Sometimes your argument seems to be more of an attorney attempting to raise 'reasonable doubt' than it does someone who is invested in a conviction. But, no matter.

By the way, the one study that you have cited as evidence of your position is an old study when 5-gallons was the limit. Time moved on, the rules change.....and I submit the culture and merchandising of baiting changed. Gone (probably) are the dump-truck load of beets and carrots. But in their place came the two 50lb bags of corn and multi-20lb bags of carrots.

That's enough for today. Tho I'm still lookin' at the offerings on the buffet.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Well, at least we're making progress with your grudging admission that some types of food plots offer a similar potential for the spread of disease as has been alleged that bait piles do.

We all rely on our own anecdotal observations and each of our experiences differ. I don't deer hunt on public land but each fall I do a substantial amount of bird hunting on public land during archery deer season. In prior seasons I cannot think of one example of stumbling across an illegal bait pile while bird hunting. I can think of numerous occasions when I saw illegal tree stands on public land, usually of the homemade variety nailed onto trees and often these would have a few sugar beets or carrots in front of them but I have never witnessed the "piles" of rotting vegetation that some of you like to wax poetic about. Not saying they did not or do not exist, just that my personal experience has not come across them while traipsing through public land during hunting season. So based on my personal experiences, I fully believe that the vast majority of hunters using bait in Michigan were in compliance with the limit. But I fully understand that YMMV. 

BTW, you made a distinction in a previous response that caught my eye, it was distinguishing between supplemental feeding and baiting. I found it interesting because while these two terms mean fundamentally different things, they have become merged in the lexicon utilized by many modern game agencies to be interchangeable. Most of the studies regarding the transmission of disease and deer referred to supplemental feeding as a potential cause. As those studies are recycled and reviewed in articles and in publications from game agencies, you can see the progression where for awhile they referred to the research suggesting that supplemental feeding was a potential cause and then to supplemental feeding AND baiting as a potential cause until most today have dropped the reference to supplemental feeding and just state that baiting is a potential cause, despite the fact that no new research has been conducted and the original research was based on the impact of supplemental feeding. This "mission creep" is not coincidental in my opinion and is part of an intentional effort to blur the lines of distinction between two different practices.


----------



## hunterdude772

fairfax1 said:


> Yes, deer will do that. We can't stop that with any method that doesn't unreasonably compromise our agricultural practices . But that is not the point of the bait ban. The point is: Baiting unnecessarily concentrates the animals.


tsk tsk tsk fairfax1.

You are at it again. Your point here is well taken.

The word unnecessarily certainly would be in the eye of the beholder and an opinion at best. Ask a non-hunting biologist or a person that used that as their method of hunting and you're bound to get two different answers.

When lawmakers asked the biologist "Young man have you ever spent time in a deer blind"? The biologist answered "No sir, I never have".

:help:


----------



## fairfax1

A poster responds:

_"Well, at least we're making progress with your grudging admission that some types of food plots offer a similar potential for the spread of disease as has been alleged that bait piles do."_

Now, now, that is a mischaractrization of my position ...now and in the past. Mine is not a 'grudging' admission...I am on record on these forums as stating that food plotters have i's to dot and t's to cross to keep what they do healthy and positive. "Similar potential" are your words, not mine. I would not go so far.

There is greater potential for disease transmission with bait piles. There may be potential for transmission with some kinds of food plots and forages used in food plots. 
There is a qualitative difference between these two distinctions. What they do share is a concern...one more than the other....that a 'potential' of transmission exists and therefore each requires prudence and caution in it's implementation. 

With baiting it is prudent to stop it until details are traced, adequate sampling completed, and research conducted. With plotting it is prudent to change tactics with size of plots and forages offered......until there is a consensus that plotting offers either a clean bill or is damned as being as great a risk-enhancer as baiting.

I have often objected to the oversimplification offered by the pro-bait faction that all food plots are the same as their pile of vegetables. I find that argument non-sensical and look at it as simply a defensive reaction to the charge that placed foodstuffs offer higher risk.


----------



## Pinefarm

Before the ban, just look at all the baiters that started in August. By September, all bait sellers were in full swing and guys were slinging multiple bags into their trucks in mid-Spetember. 
Only one problem, all baiting was illegal until Oct. 1.

So much for baiters complying with the law.  Unless, all those people just started buying bait for all their multiple 2 gallon recreational sites 100 yards from their house. :lol:

We sold bait for a while after the ban came in and had another big bait seller right down M-37. September was as good a month for bait sales as Oct. or Nov.
Now how could that be?

That's another of the reasons we decided to stop selling it.


----------



## fairfax1

Another poster responds to a post:

_"The word unnecessarily certainly would be in the eye of the beholder and an opinion at best. Ask a non-hunting biologist or a person that used that as their method of hunting and you're bound to get two different answers."_

Undoubtedley, you'll get two different versions. But, only one counts.
The one from the individual who has the education, the training, and most importantly, the _responsibility_, to ensure that risk is not unnecessarily increased to the herd, the economy, and the hunting culture by some stump-sitters' favorite tactic. 


Then the poster re-posts a purported exchange between a legislator and a DNR biologist:
_"When lawmakers asked the biologist "Young man have you ever spent time in a deer blind"? The biologist answered "No sir, I never have"._

Which, is appropro of nothing. 

I've hunted deer for 45 years. I do 60 sits a year. 
I too can quite truthfully state I have never spent time in a deer blind.

So?

"Blind-time' qualifies one for what? I've never seen it on any of the resume's submitted to me for any kind of job. It surely does not qualify one for being a biologist...........or, for that matter, a legislator.


----------



## cadillacjethro

fairfax1 said:


> I have often objected to the oversimplification offered by the pro-bait faction that all food plots are the same as their pile of vegetables. I find that argument non-sensical and look at it as simply a defensive reaction to the charge that placed foodstuffs offer higher risk.


I believe if you spread 2 gal out over a 10' X 10' area you would be hard pressed to come up with a pile. Make the argument for or against baiting, but don't stretch the truth to improve your position.


----------



## fairfax1

CJ posts: _"I believe if you spread 2 gal out over a 10' X 10' area you would be hard pressed to come up with a pile. Make the argument for or against baiting, but don't stretch the truth to improve your position."_

This idea that most baiters were violators vs. the idea that most diligently spread their 2ga/10x10 sorta boils down to 'faith'.
I have found virtually no evidence that baiting was mostly practiced legally. Some here find little evidence that it was not.

So be it.

I post my arguments here trying not to knowingly stretch any truth but rather to convey my conviction on one topic or another. I am convinced that most bait was 'piled'. And in quantities above the 2-gallon limit. Oftentimes, if not most of the time, significantly above the limit. 

But I will gladly concede to the poster that if, in fact, 2gallons was spread over 100sqft.......it would not be a 'pile' as I interpet a pile.

Would that it be so.


----------



## Pinefarm

As far as anecdotal evidence goes, for those who say they saw very saw people buying much bait, before the ban, have they ever SOLD bait? I've sold bait. My anecdotal evidence is completely counter to some claims I've read here. 
We had it delivered by the dump-truck load and had 4-5 kids bagging. Same with the seller right up the road. 
What credentials do those other's claiming good compliance have, other than walking around their property?


----------

