# Food Plots and CWD



## poz

As far as I can see there are quite a few hypocrits on here. I use to Post on here alot until I got fed up with all the hunters bashing each other. For years guys with food plots, bashed baiters and vice versa. My questions is for all the guys with food plots that claim to be concerned about the herd. You are planting plots specifically to attract deer, not for farming ,not for cattle, for deer. I've seen plot sizes from 10 x10ft. to acres in size, But the person who planted these has one purpose only, to attract deer! We know that they claiming that this can spead by deer in close proximity to each other. So why are you guys not destroying your food plots inorder to help stop the spread of this disease. You guys claim that your food plots draw deer from other properties around. So as the ethical hunters that you are you should voluntary stop planting and destroy current plots until this problem is resolved. I haven't heard of one hunter saying they stopped planting food plots inorder to do there part to stop this disease, why not? You are helping deer congregate together that might not normally do because of food plots. So until you guys stop planting and start doing your part, Stop argueing with other hunters on their method of hunting


----------



## gunfun13

poz said:


> As far as I can see there are quite a few hypocrits on here. *I use to Post on here alot until I got fed up with all the hunters bashing each other*. For years guys with food plots, bashed baiters and vice versa. My questions is for all the guys with food plots that claim to be concerned about the herd. You are planting plots specifically to attract deer, not for farming ,not for cattle, for deer. I've seen plot sizes from 10 x10ft. to acres in size, But the person who planted these has one purpose only, to attract deer! We know that they claiming that this can spead by deer in close proximity to each other. So why are you guys not destroying your food plots inorder to help stop the spread of this disease. You guys claim that your food plots draw deer from other properties around. So as the ethical hunters that you are you should voluntary stop planting and destroy current plots until this problem is resolved. I haven't heard of one hunter saying they stopped planting food plots inorder to do there part to stop this disease, why not? You are helping deer congregate together that might not normally do because of food plots. So until you guys stop planting and start doing your part, Stop argueing with other hunters on their method of hunting



So why post something like this? All it will do is turn into a baiters vs food plotters thread. This topic has already been beaten to death on here.


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e

poz said:


> As far as I can see there are quite a few hypocrits on here. I use to Post on here alot until I got fed up with all the hunters bashing each other. For years guys with food plots, bashed baiters and vice versa. My questions is for all the guys with food plots that claim to be concerned about the herd. You are planting plots specifically to attract deer, not for farming ,not for cattle, for deer. I've seen plot sizes from 10 x10ft. to acres in size, But the person who planted these has one purpose only, to attract deer! We know that they claiming that this can spead by deer in close proximity to each other. So why are you guys not destroying your food plots inorder to help stop the spread of this disease. You guys claim that your food plots draw deer from other properties around. So as the ethical hunters that you are you should voluntary stop planting and destroy current plots until this problem is resolved. I haven't heard of one hunter saying they stopped planting food plots inorder to do there part to stop this disease, why not? You are helping deer congregate together that might not normally do because of food plots. So until you guys stop planting and start doing your part, Stop argueing with other hunters on their method of hunting


first of good luck finding a bait pile that is actually 10x10 or larger. . second good luck finding a food plot 10x10, lol. . not everyone that plants food plots plants them JUST for deer or to hunt deer over. . i can come up with hundreds of acres of people whom I personally know who have food plots and are not hunted over. . plus the food plots we have here on our property(never a deer hunted over) are not only for deer, but for turkeys, rabbits, and grouse and doves. . rabbits and grouse as well as doves have been scarce here for years and there is actually starting to be a population now. . the food plots arent much different than a cornfield with the exception of intent. . farmers may plant the corn for a way of living for revenue. people may plant food plots to have healthy deer. . to compare a small baitpile to a large foodplot is useless. . sure there will be some contact between deer in a foodplot. . same as a farmers field. . should we ban farming as well?? i think not. .


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e

gunfun13 said:


> So why post something like this? All it will do is turn into a baiters vs food plotters thread. This topic has already been beaten to death on here.


as well his first line if you noticed was calling "a lot of people on here are hypocrites". . because of his opinion compared to others. .


----------



## poz

gunfun13 said:


> So why post something like this? All it will do is turn into a baiters vs food plotters thread. This topic has already been beaten to death on here.


 
This was carried over from the FREEP thread. I didn't want highjack that thread so I started a new one. I copied my post from another thread, so some remarks pretain to previous threads.

The main purpose of this thread is what are the guys who are planting food plots to concentrate deer in a certain area doing to help combat the disease. On other threads they are calling people names and argueing about who is right. So I am asking if you consider yourself an ethical hunter and are concerned about our herd, shouldn't you be taking step to help deer avoid being concentrated to a certain area. Now that baiting is banned, more deer will concentrate on food plots, especially in wooded areas. Isn't this what we are trying to avoid


----------



## outdoor_m_i_k_e

im contributing by not baiting  lol, but really read my above post. .


----------



## gunfun13

I am not doing anything. So far I have seen no evidence that food plots contribute to the spread of CWD, just people speculating that it could. There has also been recent speculation that some food plot type plants that are high in copper might actually prevent CWD. When and if CWD is ever found in free ranging deer, I will discontinue planting root type crops. At this point, being that I am 100 miles from the hot zone, I don't feel that is necessary.


----------



## poz

outdoor_m_i_k_e said:


> first of good luck finding a bait pile that is actually 10x10 or larger. . second good luck finding a food plot 10x10, lol. .
> 
> Your LOL because you never seen a 10 x 10 bait pile, i believe the law requires to spread you 2 gallons over a large area, not just in a pile. As for a 10 X10 food plot, They make a variety of seed designed to be used in small areas where farm machines cannot access. Many hunters use NO PLOW to make small food plots.
> 
> AS far as my hypocrits comment, your already prove it yourself by saying "LOL"


----------



## gunfun13

Poz, a good producing food plot will yield about 10,000 pounds of forage per acre in a year, or roughly 1/4 pound per square foot. That means a 10x10 plot will produce around 25lbs total over several months of growing season. Considering deer eat over 5lbs of forage per day, how much concentration can there really be? 

On the other hand a bait pile that with two gallons is probably around 10-15lbs, and can be replenished everyday for 3 months, or year round if within 100 yard of a residence. So during hunting season you can concentrate deer with 900-1350lbs of bait in the same 10x10 area. With a 10x10 area you can feed 2-3 deer every single night with bait, or a single deer about every 45 days with a food plot.


----------



## Allegan outdoorsman

So far I have seen no evidence that food plots contribute to the spread of CWD, just people speculating that it could. 


Same thing about bait. There is not a deer out there that can be proven to have contracted cwd at a bait pile but there is speculation that saliva at the bait site could do it.


I believe that if a facility is found to have cwd then they quarantine the entire farm for many years. I would guess that it could be many acres. Why would that be? It seems by most arguments of bait vs food plots that you should be able to just throw out the trough(? sp) and start over as the entire rest of the farm where maybe a deer never touched (like a food plot) should be O.K.


----------



## poz

GUNFUN13,

Many people on here support QDM. They strive for a "healthy" herd. But as an ethical hunter If I had a food plot and notice that now since my neighbors are not baiting that I am pulling more deer. I would question if this was a good thing for the herd. If they are saying it is spread by deer in close proximity to each other why would I want to bring more deer together. I'm not saying to ban food plots, I am all for them, I'm not against baiting, I have done it in the past, I may do it in the future. I believe it's each hunters choice.


----------



## gunfun13

poz said:


> But as an ethical hunter If I had a food plot and notice that now since my neighbors are not baiting that I am pulling more deer. I would question if this was a good thing for the herd.


It is a good thing for the herd. They are in that plot because it's a higher quality forage then whatever else they have available. There is still no evidence that it could spread CWD, or any evidence we have CWD in free ranging deer. IMO the factual benefits far out weigh the speculative negatives of food plots.


----------



## CHASINEYES

I started these toying around with these small plots 2 yrs ago trying to compete with the feeders and baiting. I have never hunted over these, but have watched from a distance. These plots do not attract deer anywhere near the bait I used years ago. The sad part, this is ag land. Yep, people can talk all they want these little plots do not attract like a bait pile. If they did this would be to the ground in 1 or 2 nights. Its clover by the way.

The talk of 10x10 bait pile just tells me people dont really know how to bait anyway. I wont get in to that, I,m not gonna help someone become more efficient with 2 gallons of bait. I,ve seen bait piles through the years and can tell you most do not even bait properly.:lol:


----------



## poz

gunfun13 said:


> It is a good thing for the herd. They are in that plot because it's a higher quality forage then whatever else they have available. There is still no evidence that it could spread CWD, or any evidence we have CWD in free ranging deer. IMO the factual benefits far out weigh the speculative negatives of food plots.


 
Food plots are great for deer, I agree with what you say. However, the only thing that we know that spreads this disease is contact between deer. the more deer you have concentrated in an area the more you contact you have between them. We don't know if food plots will spread the disease, We don't know if baiting will. But we are asking a group of hunters(baiters) to give up their method of hunting inorder to help prevent the spread of this while others are planting plots to concentrate deer to their property. This is dividing hunters even more. If this disease does spread into the wild, the next step will be the mass killing of all the deer in that county and surrounding counties. So i would like to see hunters atleast try to work together support one another. Do you know what a boost to QDM it would be if they stepped up and said "we are asking hunters to stop using practices that concentrate together" whether it's legal or not. This show that they are serious about the health of the herd. We can have hunters fighting with each other over bait and food plots.


----------



## gunfun13

Based on the current evidence, if QDMA asked michigan hunters to quit plotting I think it's members would be outraged and it would hurt the organization, not boost it. There is no good reason to stop plotting at this time, maybe if more evidence comes forward, but not now. Because of the lack of evidence, I suspect baiting will be reinstated by next season. Asking food plotters to stop planting because baiters had to give up baiting is not a good reason.


----------



## Bob S

gunfun13 said:


> There is no good reason to stop plotting at this time,


Especially since at a meeting last Tuesday, DNR Wildlife Division Chief Russ Mason, said he encourages landowners to plant food plots and improve habitat on their properties.


----------



## Tom Morang

Bob S said:


> Especially since at a meeting last Tuesday, DNR Wildlife Division Chief Russ Mason, said he encourages landowners to plant food plots and improve habitat on their properties.


Good for him!


----------



## poz

Guys, I agree with what you are saying about food plots and habitat, they are both great for deer. But, Bait doesn't give the animals CWD. They banned it because it concentrates deer. That is what the DNR is hoping to avoid, the concentration of deer. In an area I hunt, we pushed 24 deer out of a 2 acre woods. Yes, we are planning on shooting alot of does this year, but when you have this many deer concentrated in an area they will be in contact with each other, thus possibly spread a disease. So what I am saying is that as ethical hunters should we take steps to be proactive in stopping deer from concentrating around food plots instead of waiting till someone forces us to do it.


----------



## gunfun13

poz said:


> Guys, I agree with what you are saying about food plots and habitat, they are both great for deer. But, Bait doesn't give the animals CWD. They banned it because it concentrates deer. That is what the DNR is hoping to avoid, the concentration of deer. *In an area I hunt, we pushed 24 deer out of a 2 acre woods*. Yes, we are planning on shooting alot of does this year, but when you have this many deer concentrated in an area they will be in contact with each other, thus possibly spread a disease. So what I am saying is that as ethical hunters should we take steps to be proactive in stopping deer from concentrating around food plots instead of waiting till someone forces us to do it.


Sounds like your wood lot is concentrating deer too. Based on your logic wouldn't bulldozing the woodlot and turning it into barren land be the ethical thing to do?


----------



## poz

gunfun13 said:


> Sounds like your wood lot is concentrating deer too. Based on your logic wouldn't bulldozing the woodlot and turning it into barren land be the ethical thing to do?


 
No, thining the herd and getting less deer concentrated in the area is the solution. I'm not asking people to bulldoze their land but just as we are asking other hunters to do their part and give up their method of hunting (baiting)some people on here think Hey just because my method isn't illegal, I'm okay I can attract and concentrate all the deer I want.


----------



## gunfun13

poz said:


> No, thining the herd and getting less deer concentrated in the area is the solution.


 Bingo

Which BTW, food plots are a very effective tool for harvesting does.


----------



## cadillacjethro

gunfun13 said:


> Bingo
> 
> Which BTW, food plots are a very effective tool for harvesting does.


You guys are making Poz's argument for him. _Why _is it a very effective tool for harvesting does? _Because_ it draws deer into a concentrated area. Why were the deer in the woodlot? I would think a reliable food source was close by. A food plot in an agricultural area not getting hit doesn't surprise me. Put that baby in the woods up here and see what happens. I'm not against food plots, but I' not against what was legal baiting last year either. I believe banning one without banning the other would be akin to saying "It's OK to beat someone with a bat, but illegal to beat someone with a club". I would like to see both stay. Oh yea, I know beating with anything is illegal, but I hope it paints a picture that expresses the splitting of hairs I believe we are doing here.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Gunfun13 and other food plotters are being disingenuous if they don't acknowledge that food plots increase the carrying capacity of the land and contribute to population increases. 

The QDMA philosophy is to manage the herd at a population of around 60-65% of K (carrying capacity). You can accomplish this in one of two ways, you can shoot a bunch of deer and reduce the population to 65% of the carrying capacity of the available natural habitat or you can make improvements to the habitat including the planting of food plots to increase the carrying capacity, so that the same land can support the existing or even greater numbers of deer. If you look at an issue of Quality Whitetails, it's obvious that the vast majority of QDMA members (myself included) have opted for improving private land habitats to increase the carrying capacity of the land. This will result in increases to the overall whitetail population.

Virtually all of the wildlife professionals that are familiar with CWD acknowledge that by far the most effective means of slowing it's spread is to dramatically reduce cervid populations. This is acknowledged by Dr. Schmitt, the head of the CWD task force in Michigan. Food plots can be counter-productive to this goal.

If you own property in a DMU that is over stated population goals, it's hypocritical of you to condemn baiting for it's potential role in transmitting CWD yet make improvements to your property that will accomplish the same thing by artificially increasing the carrying capacity of your land and thus increasing the resident population.

Sorry, you just can't have it both ways, it's just that simple.


----------



## sagittarius

Munsterlndr said:


> Gunfun13 and other food plotters are being disingenuous if they don't acknowledge that food plots increase the carrying capacity of the land and contribute to population increases.


 To be more accurate .... Foodplots have the "potential" to contribute to population increases via increased forage and forage nutrition quality. Whether the population is allowed to increase ... is up to hunters/preditors. 



Munsterlndr said:


> The QDMA philosophy is to manage the herd at a population of around 60-65% of K (carrying capacity). You can accomplish this in one of two ways, you can shoot a bunch of deer and reduce the population to 65% of the carrying capacity of the available natural habitat or you can make improvements to the habitat including the planting of food plots to increase the carrying capacity, so that the same land can support the existing or even greater numbers of deer. If you look at an issue of Quality Whitetails, it's obvious that the vast majority of QDMA members (myself included) have opted for improving private land habitats to increase the carrying capacity of the land. This will result in increases to the overall whitetail population.


 Maybe, but only if the whitetail population is "allowed" to increase.



Munsterlndr said:


> Virtually all of the wildlife professionals that are familiar with CWD acknowledge that by far the most effective means of slowing it's spread is to dramatically reduce cervid populations. This is acknowledged by Dr. Schmitt, the head of the CWD task force in Michigan. Food plots can be counter-productive to this goal.


Yes, lowering the cervid populations is by far the most important for slowing the spread of CWD. Native habitat improvement can also be counter-protuctive to this goal.... but who would advocate proventing that?



Munsterlndr said:


> If you own property in a DMU that is over stated population goals, it's hypocritical of you to condemn baiting for it's potential role in transmitting CWD yet make improvements to your property that will accomplish the same thing by artificially increasing the carrying capacity of your land and thus increasing the resident population.
> Sorry, you just can't have it both ways, it's just that simple.


 Nope. High deer populations decimate native browse and habitats regardless of ag. crops or foodplot forage availability. High deer populations were and still are a problem even before TB, or CWD. The real issue is just odds of disease transmission between a 2' diameter corn pile, and a 1/4 acre clover plot, it's just that simple.


----------



## Pinefarm

I would expect MDNR to encourage even more landowners to improve their habitat as a way to wean away from bagged bait. I'd expect timbering, mast tree's, fruit tree's, and fields to be a part of that suggested habitat improvement.
The main reasoning is, with improved habitat, you don't need bait. Yet, a sq. mile of improved habitat would hopefully deflect any disease spread, not just CWD, more than a 10x10' baited area. 
And if hunters finally embrace new rules designed to lower antlerless herd numbers, then impoved habitat won't add to deer densities.

My anecdotal evidence is that bait hunters pass far more antlerless deer while waiting for any buck and then plan on filling an antlerless tag "later", than those who do not use bait. I'd like to see any survey's on this matter.


----------



## gunfun13

Musterlnder, I have never condemed baiting and have had two spin cast feeders set up specifically for harvesting does. But one must acknowledge that the potential for CWD to spread is much higher with bait then with food plots. To me, comparing food plots to bait is apples to oranges. There is no evidence that CWD is spread by food plots or that CWD even exists in free ranging deer. Which is why I think its ridiculous to call for a food plot ban and the reason I mentioned earlier I believe baiting will be reinstated by next year (unless further evidence emerges). 

Yes, my food plots probably increase the carrying capacity of the land. But the actual denisty is decreasing because we harvest many does annually.


----------



## Munsterlndr

sagittarius said:


> Nope. High deer populations decimate native browse and habitats regardless of ag. crops or foodplot forage availability. High deer populations were and still are a problem even before TB, or CWD. The real issue is just odds of disease transmission between a 2' diameter corn pile, and a 1/4 acre clover plot, it's just that simple.


Nope, the incremental difference in facilitating the potential spread of CWD, between 2 gallons of bait spread over a 10 x 10 area and a food plot has little to do with the issue of limiting the spread of CWD. I will grant you that it's a convenient rationalization that some food plotters use to misdirect scrutiny from the real issue, that of over-population and the impact that food plotting can have on contributing to the problems related to inflated carrying capacities.


----------



## Pinefarm

I think you'll find many parcels with food plots have lower density, due to the hunting practices of those landowners. 

I'd argue the way bait is usually hunted, with numberous does and fawns coming and going while waiting for a buck, add's more to larger herds than plots.

I'd bet the average landowner who does habitat improvements is far more open to QDM style management than the average baiter.


----------



## Munsterlndr

gunfun13 said:


> Musterlnder, I have never condemed baiting and have had two spin cast feeders set up specifically for harvesting does. But one must acknowledge that the potential for CWD to spread is much higher with bait then with food plots. To me, comparing food plots to bait is apples to oranges. There is no evidence that CWD is spread by food plots or that CWD even exists in free ranging deer. Which is why I think its ridiculous to call for a food plot ban and the reason I mentioned earlier I believe baiting will be reinstated by next year (unless further evidence emerges).


Why must one acknowledge that the potential for spreading disease is higher with baiting then with food plots? Do you have some actual research that would support this contention or just the "opinions" of some DNR employees who have a pre-determined negative attitude towards baiting based on issues that are not related to CWD. The concern about baiting regarding CWD is that they un-naturally concentrate deer. Is it even debatable that food plots also create un-natural concentrations of deer? If you think that's not the case, I have pictures that will disabuse you of that notion. 


gunfun13 said:


> Yes, my food plots probably increase the carrying capacity of the land. But the actual denisty is decreasing because we harvest many does annually.


 Baloney. If you are increasing the carrying capacity, in most private land hunting scenarios, you won't come close to killing enough deer to keep the population at a level similar to if the herd was maintained at 65-65% of the current resident population. There is still going to be a greater net total of deer left after the season on the property that starts with more deer. A higher post season population means that there are going to be more fawns born the next year, as long as there is sufficient habitat and by supplementing the habitat with improvements, you are insuring that will be the case.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Just some food for thought, some quotes from the recent QW article comparing food plots to baiting. My comments are in red.

"but theres also disease implications with food plots. The animals are not congregating and touching but if they graze plants down to the ground, they could pick up parasites by eating feces from other deer." _Dr_. _Karl Miller, professor of wildlife management and ecology at the University of Georgia._ If feces are a potential vector for CWD transmission those deer may pick up more than parasites. 

"Chris Mcdonald, a deer program biologist for the Mississippi Department of wildlife, Fisheries and Parks cites similar concerns."

"Despite widespread disease concerns, the biologists concede it's difficult to make direct links between plagues and bait. As a biologist wrote in an April 1997 brief for the Southeastern Cooperative Wildlife Disease study, "although the potential relationships between feeding and disease transmission make beautiful theory, facts are rare and hard to obtain."

De young and Ditchkoff express similar feelings. "we have no documented cases of disease being spread by feeding in our state (Texas) or region. More baiting occurs in Texas than in any other State, mostly through broadcast corn from timed feeders.

"A lot of arguments I hear for and against baiting or food plots strike me as shallow biologically", he added (Ditchkoff), "Yes there's disease risks but anytime deer eat where they defecate they could spread disease to each other." Both Deyoung and Ditchikoof are wildlife biologists.

"That's one of the reasons I dislike baiting, if your a landowner who puts lots of time , money and effort into your habitat, doing timber work and maintaining food plots, the neighbor can keep dumping $20 bags of corn and reap your rewards." _Dr. Grant Woods_ While Dr. Woods is one of the most pre-eminent wildlife biologists in the country, it's somewhat telling that his attitude and dislike of bait is based on non-biological motivations.


----------



## Pinefarm

Munster, maybe let's look for something to agree on with this issue. 

Let's give the hypo that baiting does return to the Michigan LP. Be it this Thursday NRC meeting, 2009 or in 3 years. Do you think all bait should be allowed again, meaning carrots, beets, etc or should be be loose corn or grains only, and over a reasonably larger area?

Do we agree that carrots and beets are probably about the worst baiting option as far as being covered with feces, urine or saliva from multiple deer and still eaten?


----------



## Nick Adams

Munsterlndr said:


> Baloney. If you are increasing the carrying capacity, in most private land hunting scenarios, you won't come close to killing enough deer to keep the population at a level similar to if the herd was maintained at 65-65% of the current resident population.


I don't think most food plotters/private land deer managers have a real appreciation for just how many deer they would have shoot each year, every year, to offset the effects of their habitat improvements. Some try, and I respect that, but many, in my experience, really don't care. They have lots of deer and better deer hunting. Taking enough does each year on really good habitat isn't deer hunting - it's a lot of work.

I don't think were are going to get past the problem until people take their deer management more seriously than they take their deer hunting. If we ever get to that point we will see a lot less baiting and a lot less food plotting.

-na


----------



## Munsterlndr

I don't think it makes a heck of a lot of difference if you are complying with the two gallon limit. Two gallons of sugar beets is what, about 3 beets? At least on my property, regardless of whether it's two gallons of corn or carrots or apples or beets, it's gone within about an 8 hour period. I know this because the only time I use bait is for my deer cam and I can measure the time stamp from when I put it out until when it's all gone. I just don't see big piles of deer poop in the spot where I have put out bait for my deer cam or in the area where my mineral lick is. I see piles of deer poop where deer have been bedding or in the trails that lead too and from my food plots and I also see large amounts of deer poop in the spring in my food plots after the snow has melted. 

If you are talking about the potential for sharing saliva, then I'd agree that sugar beets and carrots are probably the bait product that has the highest potential, along with are mineral blocks and root crops in food plots. I could live with limitations as to the type of bait, although I doubt it will make all that much difference. Apples were my preferred type of bait, and the ones that I used were windfalls taken from the ground under some of my apple trees and repositioned to where my deer cams are located. This year I will just have to let them lay where they are under the trees. Either way they will be consumed by the same deer.


----------



## Rancid Crabtree

Glad to see more folks finally understand that privatizing and domesticating deer by ranching for them has many negatives associated with such a practice. Providing them with such and abundance of food plot feed is one of the main reasons the herd is overpopulated. From a disease transmission standpoint, congregating deer to a man made food source needs to be addressed and both feed plots and feed piles serve the same purpose. The shedding of infectious prions takes place at these NON-ESSENTIAL feeding locations.

The feed plot folks are being disingenuous when they say "Are we supposed to ban farming?" Of course not! farming to produce food for people and livestock is essential and necessary. Bait plots are not. Comparing accidental congregating of deer due to farming practices and the intentional congregating of deer by plotters is a silly and weak argument.

Farmers dislike deer eating their crops. Plotters invite such action. 
To those that say that their plot is for species other than deer, I say, impose measures that prevent deer from congregating at your plots while still allowing the other critters to enjoy them. The vast majority of plotters are in it for the advantage it gives them in regards to attracting and hoarding deer and domesticating/conditioning them to use your property over your neighbor's. If there was not a benefit to deer hunters, and they were only allowed to plot for other animals, I suggest many would suddenly find that they have no time for plotting any more.


----------



## Pinefarm

If there were no deer, I'd focus on turkey or ducks and geese. I'd plant for them too.


----------



## Munsterlndr

I probably would too. I spent the morning yesterday blasting pheasants at one of the larger private game preserves in our area and spent most of the time walking rows of millet & sorghum that had been planted for the pheasants. I kept noticing that those crop rows were loaded with deer tracks and with deer poop and in between missing easy shots, I kept thinking about this thread. This place has 600 acres most of it planted in crops for pheasant. How are places like that going to fit into the whole CWD scheme of things? The surrounding countryside is pure sand and mostly just scrub pine and I doubt that in it's natural state it could support 10-15 DPSM. This place is loaded with lush habitat and forage material and I'd guess that it draws deer from a pretty wide ranging area. It's not fenced so the deer are coming to it from all over. I would not be surprised if their DPSM was up around 50, since they don't allow any firearms hunting on the property. Talk about un-natural concentration of critters and supporting an inflated population! But the guy on the forty next door that wants to put out a dozen apples for his grandson to hunt over is considered a high risk for the transmission of CWD. Sorry but I'm a logical kind of guy, I don't just toe the party line because it happens to be popular and the scenario I described is totally illogical and is a perfect example of why this ban is all about hype and totally lacking in any substantive impact in actually reducing the spread of disease.


----------



## JJ Mac

I agree with poz and munster completely. I am exclusively an archery hunter. I begin baiting on Oct 1 and usually have my tags filled by Oct. 15 most years. The fact that I only drop bait for two weeks a year to me poses even less of a threat than a food plot or agricultural area that attracts deer for most months out the year. 

On my property (NW lower) the only real way (pre rut) to attract deer (at least this year without a plot) is by baiting.

As a result, I'm taking this year off.........which means:

I'm not buying any arrows this year
I'm not buying any broadheads this year
I'm not buying any clothing this year
I'm not buying any bait this year
I'm not buying any licenses this year
I'm not having any processing done this year
and the list goes on...........

Not to mention I won't be helping to reduce the herd either.

I feel the only way to voice my opinion to the ones who call the shots is through the economic impact of quitting.


----------



## fourpoint2

*Mary Dettloff public information officer from the DNR*
Current evidence suggests that the disease is transmitted through
infectious, self-multiplying proteins (prions) contained in saliva and
other fluids of infected animals. Susceptible animals can acquire CWD by
direct exposure to these fluids or also from contaminated environments. 
Once contaminated, research suggests that soil can remain a source of
infection for long periods of time, making CWD a particularly difficult
disease to eradicate.


----------



## Rancid Crabtree

Correct, so congregating deer with man made (trying to attract them onpurpose) bait plots is bad for the herd if baiting is bad.


----------



## smoke73

Rancid Crabtree said:


> Correct, so congregating deer with man made (trying to attract them onpurpose) bait plots is bad for the herd if baiting is bad.


No, well at least in my *food plots*, they don't get eating all the way down to the ground. 
Deer also heard up in the in the winter. Should we all do our part to help with global warming?


----------



## Pinefarm

JJ, why can't you fill those same tags without bait?
Why do you have to "attract"? Can't you intercept?
Just wondering.

If there's no deer where you hunt, why should you pull them from where they spend their time to a place where they'd otherwise never be? 
Again, just wondering.


----------



## poz

Also some food for thought.

The DNR issued a bunch of tags in the TB zone for a SPRING hunt this year. Farmers were allowed to shoot deer starting in APRIL or MAY. This was design to reduce the herd in certain areas because they feared a high concentration of deer in certain areas would help spread TB and they wanted to reduce numbers in these concentrated areas. People don't bait in the spring, so baiting wasn't the cause of possible disease spreading, so the only logical explaintion for the hunt was to reduce deer numbers because to many deer concentrated in theses areas and the DNR and cattle farmers were worried.


----------



## Pinefarm

Maybe illegal Fall baiting in the area lured deer away from where they'd otherwise be, and those baiting looked mainly for bucks and the farmers couldn't kill them because baiters lured them away? Then after those baiters left, the deer returned to their core area?

I happens in Newaygo county with the orchards. Deer all over until season, then deer disappear. Farmers then seek summer crop permits because deer were elsewhere in baiting season. Where did they go and why? And why did they return to the area right after the deer season?


----------



## poz

Pinefarm said:


> Maybe illegal Fall baiting in the area lured deer away from where they'd otherwise be, and those baiting looked mainly for bucks and the farmers couldn't kill them because baiters lured them away? Then after those baiters left, the deer returned to their core area?
> 
> I happens in Newaygo county with the orchards. Deer all over until season, then deer disappear. Farmers then seek summer crop permits because deer were elsewhere in baiting season. Where did they go and why? And why did they return to the area right after the deer season?


Come on PINEFARM, now you are grasping at straws. We use to bait in Lake county for years, our baits went cold some times for weeks. The source was ACORNS. On years with good acorn crops baiting wasn't as productive as years without. This spring hunt was due to areas that had large number of deer concentrated in the area and the fear that they would spread TB to one another. Why is it that hard to admit that concentrating deer in areas whether by baiting or food plots may help spread disease.


----------



## Pinefarm

LOL YOU COME ON! I'm not grasping at straws, I'm beating the point with a bat! 
Maybe baits when cold where you were in some shot out area. I have never seen bait go cold, even when the forest floor was a carpet of acorns.
I have seen bait slow down and maybe get a skunk here and there, but for weeks? LOL
I owned a store in Lake county. I don't recall any "bait not hit for a month" stories in some 15 years. :lol:
The only time I've seen where bait didn't draw like candy is in the old days when everyone started in August and carrots would get slimey in the 90 degree heat.

What may have happened to you was another bad thing that baiting brings...sabatoge on public land. There's a lot of locals that "go for midday walks" in season with bags of deoderant soap shavings. If someone baits too close to where they planned on hunting, they'll throw down a small handfull of Irish Mist shavings on your bait. You'll never see it, but it will kill your bait. Baiting creates a stronger feeling of possessiveness on public land. The practice of deer baiting on public land seems to put down an unspoken claim marker saying "this area is mine, I baited it first".
A bait ban is a dream a serious public land hunter who puts in his time.

After being in the business for nearly 15 years and seeing all sides of the issue, from being a baiter to a non-baiter and by going out of state a lot, the practice of baiting in Michigan now reminds me of welfare. It trys to equalize those with few deer with those that have more deer. It makes hunters think they can put in a minumum effort and get the same results of someone who puts in lots of effort. It creates a black market of millions in bait being sold that goes undeclared. It also creates a whole underbelly sub-culture of those skirting, bending or breaking the rules as a way to get the edge or beat the system. Between baiting early or overbaiting, over 50% of those who bait are breaking the rules somehow. IMHO

So, to make a long story short, baiting in Michigan now reminds me of welfare.


----------



## cmgronsk10

PINEFARM you are really stretching by saying that people that hunt over bait is similar to welfare. That is insulting and demeaning. But that seems to be the antibaiting MO lately. Just look at Eric Sharp and other antibaiters that blast hunters by using buzz words like welfare or "rotting vegetables" as a way to demean other hunters. I will tell you one thing about this baiting ban it sure shows groups like the MUCC and QDMA's true colors. They preach about getting people involved but make it harder for others to harverst deer with their lobbying of the DNR, but see your groups are trying to limit other hunters from enjoying the outdoors as they see fit. You want lessen the spread of CWD keep people hunting to manage the herd. And I can think of no better system to harvest deer than baiting. No one should tell me that I cannot feed deer on my property no more than we should be able to tell you what to plant in your food plots. This is a fundamental feature of our country and the DNR and elites like you are lobbying to take that away.


----------



## poz

Pinefarm

The true colors of QDM are coming out. The only way to help prevent this disease is to stop deer from concentrating together and spreading the disease. Does bait concentrate deer? YES, does FOOD PLOTS in non FARMING areas, YES. Most bait hunters won't bait, they will do their part. It's a shame that after years of QDM preaching they want a healthy herd that they won't step up to the plate.


----------



## swampbuck

poz,

very good point!!


----------



## dcure2002

I have been hunting over bait to bring deer in from neighboring properties...just like people who plant food plots. I will not bait this year, but I doubt any one will stop planting plots to bring the deer in. In my opinion I don't think either of these practices will effect the spread of CWD more or less than the other. Both obviously could if the disease is spread through congregation of deer. At this point, until further evidence is brought forward, I see this as strictly a social issue. It is much the same as the debate over snagging salmon in the river. If you are following the catch limit and the possession limit, what real difference does it make if you catch a salmon in the mouth or the side? These fish are going to die, and in the locations that most of them are snagged they are not going to make it much further up river if any further at all. Somehow the practice of snagging was seen as people who don't know how to "really" fish, it became a social issue, and groups like the MUCC worked to make it illegal. I see baiting as the same kind of thing.


----------



## swoosh

poz said:


> Pinefarm
> 
> The true colors of QDM are coming out. The only way to help prevent this disease is to stop deer from concentrating together and spreading the disease. Does bait concentrate deer? YES, does FOOD PLOTS in non FARMING areas, YES. Most bait hunters won't bait, they will do their part. It's a shame that after years of QDM preaching they want a healthy herd that they won't step up to the plate.


There is more to this than just concentrating deer. QDM has nothing to do with this at all.

Again if we are going to bring QDM into this, one of the biggest objectives in QDM is to have a deer herd in check with populations. This will protect the herd from disease more than banning plots, bait or any scent attracants(synthetic).

For those who really care and are not pissed because of baiting is banned. I see deer urine that is sold from farms as a huge threat. I am putting my letter together for Dept of Ag, DNR and NRC. I hope all will do the same!!!!


----------



## Rancid Crabtree

thought I would share this with you since it applies to this topic. Here is the question.

Hello Brian, I have a question that is currently a hot topic on several internet discussion boards. What are the current suggestions for dealing with food plots for whitetails? Specifically, I would like to know if the planting of 1/8 to multiple acre plots of clover, corn, soybeans, etc. is viewed in a negative manner re: CWD transmission? In other words, is food plotting viewed in the same negative light as is baiting and feeding? Thanks 

The answer:

Difficult to answer your question. 

We know that saliva from late-stage CWD+ animals is infectious. We know that respiratory secretions from TB+ animals are infectious. We also know that these infectious materials remain viable for prolonged time periods. We know that a bait pile tends to congregate artificially high numbers of animals to the same spot. So, if an infectious (shedding disease agent) animal visits a bait pile, there is ample reason to believe that infectious material would be left at the bait site for subsequent animals to ingest. And because the bait pile is small (relatively speaking), if additional animals visit the bait pile, the odds that they will be exposed are pretty high. 

Without the bait pile, a CWD+ animal will still be shedding infectious agent into the environment where it will persist for some period of time. But will another animal (1) encounter the infectious agent and (2) ingest enough infectious agent to become infected? Maybe, maybe not. There is ample reason to believe that some CWD+ animals never infect additional animals. But if you artificially promote contact between the diseased and others, you greatly enhance risk. 

The take home message from this is that anything that results in artificial congregations of animals increases the risk of disease transmission (assuming that some quantity of infectious agent is present). 

Now, what about a food plot? 

If a CWD+ or TB+ animal visits a food plot, how much infectious material does it leave behind? Hard to say, but more than likely enough to infect other animals. 

And what are the odds that other animals will be exposed to that infectious material? The odds may be lower with a food plot than a small bait pile, and would depend on several factors, including: - how large is the food plot? - how many infected animals visit the food plot? - how long do the infected animals stay there (how much infectious material do they leave behind)? - how many other (healthy and susceptible) deer are visiting the food plot? - how often do they visit the food plot? - how long do they stay at the food plot? 

But the odds of disease transmission at a food plot are still most likely higher than if the food plot was not there. From this perspective it would be hard to argue that a food plot is much more than a large bait pile (in the fact that both are designed to attract deer to a known location). 

Another way to look at this is from a different angle. 

What are the consequences? 

Clearly the consequences of TB are pretty steep. Part of this comes from the fact that TB can spill back and forth between livestock and wildlife. 

And what about CWD? Available research suggests that CWD does not affect domestic livestock or human health (or at least has not to date). So we're talking primarily about impacts on deer. And the verdict is not in on that yet. What we know: - CWD is contagious, always fatal, etc. to deer. - CWD seems to spread quite easily between deer. - CWD prevalence can get pretty high (~35% prevalence in adult male hunter-killed deer [combined white-tailed and mule deer> in a substantial geographic area of Wyoming). - There aren't a lot of documented instances of successful CWD management in free-ranging deer populations. 

In other words, CWD is not good for individual deer, is not good from a population perspective either, and once you have it established in a free-ranging population, you will probably not ever get rid of it (at least nobody has yet). 

So, is the risk, however slight it may be, associated with food plots worth it? Only the states, and the stakeholders in the states, can answer that question. States that have banned baiting have taken a stance and identified that the risk associated with this practice is too great. To my knowledge, no state has banned food plots. But maybe this is due to the fact that it would be almost impossible to clearly delineate/enforce what a food plot is and is not (is it a food plot, a garden, or a field?). 

Hope this helps. 

Bryan J. Richards Chronic Wasting Disease Project Leader USGS National Wildlife Health Center


----------



## Munsterlndr

swoosh said:


> Again if we are going to bring QDM into this, one of the biggest objectives in QDM is to have a deer herd in check with populations. This will protect the herd from disease more than banning plots, bait or any scent attracants(synthetic).


I think what you are trying to say here is that one of the main tenets of QDM is to have populations well below the carrying capacity of the habitat.

Usually figure of 60-65% of carrying capacity is what is recommended. If QDM practitioners were simply reducing the existing population to that point, I'd agree with you that QDM practices would have a positive impact on reducing the potential transmission of CWD. Here is the problem, though. Reducing populations means fewer deer. The vast majority of QDM practitioners are interested in hunting deer. So what has occurred is that a QDM culture has arisen that promotes, instead of reducing the existing herd to 65% of K, they instead make habitat and food plot improvements to dramatically increase the carrying capacity of the available habitat. Then they can have their cake and eat it to. More and larger deer to shoot, yet the herd is still at 65% of K, so that antler development and body weights are maximized. In general, I see nothing wrong with this approach, in point of fact I've been practicing it for about 5 years and have seen an increase in harvested body weights among does. The problem is that CWD transmission will increase with greater deer densities and there is no way to explain away the fact that increasing the available habitat will result in greater deer densities. As a result, in areas where deer populations are at or above stated goals, it now certainly appears that planting food plots and creating an environment that congregates deer, will potentially increase the transmission rate of CWD. How can you condemn baiting for that potential yet continue to deny that food plots represent the same potential threat?


----------



## Nick Adams

Munsterlndr said:


> I think what you are trying to say here is that one of the main tenets of QDM is to have populations well below the carrying capacity of the habitat.
> 
> Usually figure of 60-65% of carrying capacity is what is recommended. If QDM practitioners were simply reducing the existing population to that point, I'd agree with you that QDM practices would have a positive impact on reducing the potential transmission of CWD. Here is the problem, though. Reducing populations means fewer deer. The vast majority of QDM practitioners are interested in hunting deer. So what has occurred is that a QDM culture has arisen that promotes, instead of reducing the existing herd to 65% of K, they instead make habitat and food plot improvements to dramatically increase the carrying capacity of the available habitat. Then they can have their cake and eat it to. More and larger deer to shoot, yet the herd is still at 65% of K, so that antler development and body weights are maximized. In general, I see nothing wrong with this approach, in point of fact I've been practicing it for about 5 years and have seen an increase in harvested body weights among does. The problem is that CWD transmission will increase with greater deer densities and there is no way to explain away the fact that increasing the available habitat will result in greater deer densities. As a result, in areas where deer populations are at or above stated goals, it now certainly appears that planting food plots and creating an environment that congregates deer, will potentially increase the transmission rate of CWD. How can you condemn baiting for that potential yet continue to deny that food plots represent the same potential threat?




-na


----------



## William H Bonney

So are we supposed to go around and cut down all the oak tree's and tell farmers not to plant their crops??












LMAO,..:lol:...:lol:..:lol:..:lol:

Sorry Muns and RC,, I had to,, too many factual, informative, well thought out posts in a row...:lol:


----------



## swoosh

Munsterlndr said:


> I think what you are trying to say here is that one of the main tenets of QDM is to have populations well below the carrying capacity of the habitat.
> 
> Usually figure of 60-65% of carrying capacity is what is recommended. If QDM practitioners were simply reducing the existing population to that point, I'd agree with you that QDM practices would have a positive impact on reducing the potential transmission of CWD. Here is the problem, though. Reducing populations means fewer deer. The vast majority of QDM practitioners are interested in hunting deer. So what has occurred is that a QDM culture has arisen that promotes, instead of reducing the existing herd to 65% of K, they instead make habitat and food plot improvements to dramatically increase the carrying capacity of the available habitat. Then they can have their cake and eat it to. More and larger deer to shoot, yet the herd is still at 65% of K, so that antler development and body weights are maximized. In general, I see nothing wrong with this approach, in point of fact I've been practicing it for about 5 years and have seen an increase in harvested body weights among does. The problem is that CWD transmission will increase with greater deer densities and there is no way to explain away the fact that increasing the available habitat will result in greater deer densities. As a result, in areas where deer populations are at or above stated goals, it now certainly appears that planting food plots and creating an environment that congregates deer, will potentially increase the transmission rate of CWD. How can you condemn baiting for that potential yet continue to deny that food plots represent the same potential threat?


Because I watch three deer in a 20 acre field of clover tonight:lol: If they got to close I was going to whack one to teach them a lesson.

Good speech, but there is a lot of conjecture in it. I do not condem what was legal 2 gallon baiting. What I have stated many times now are the hunters if MI did now follow the law. We all know it and the DNR knew it, if we would have 2 gallons bait is not going to hurt diddle.

I have watch deer in a bait pile, and I watch them in food plots. It depands on location of each. Once again we are getting making broad statements. We had a sweet bait spot in NLP next to a Giant Oak tree. I rarley had 2 deer in the pile at once, plus it was only half 5 gallon bucket of corn, carrots and apples. Before the 2 gallon law. I also have had some amount bait in a swamp in NLP and had 6-8 deer in it munching away.

I have yet to see deer eating together in any plot or ag field where I hunt. Deer will tend to browse more natural in an ag field or plot. They are just more natural then bait. Now they do they exact same thing, but deer behave differently in them.

Take the emoition of this, just think how a deer eats in a bean field to a bait pile Deer is rarly standing still in a bean field, hell I watch three deer browse entire clover field tonight. Not once did they get within 20 yds of each other.

I also watch three deer in a little oak flat we have, any guess on which were more congested:SHOCKED:


----------



## Munsterlndr

swoosh said:


> I have yet to see deer eating together in any plot or ag field where I hunt. Deer will tend to browse more natural in an ag field or plot. They are just more natural then bait. Now they do they exact same thing, but deer behave differently in them.
> 
> Take the emoition of this, just think how a deer eats in a bean field to a bait pile Deer is rarly standing still in a bean field, hell I watch three deer browse entire clover field tonight. Not once did they get within 20 yds of each other.


This is how deer congregate in a food plot, especially during the winter when there is limited natural browse available. 



















Click on the screen to play video.


----------



## swoosh

This is how where I hunt

http://s139.photobucket.com/albums/q304/swooshjr/Video/?action=view&current=CLIP0083-1.flv

He's looking at another buck that was 100+ yds away, I have video of them sparring as well
Notice the new growth in the back. There was were about 5 deer in there browseing

In the winter deer yard up, there together every where they go


----------

