# Reasons against baiting



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Nick Adams said:


> Personally: Not interested in planting or hunting over them.
> 
> Professionally: Marginally better than baiting but not by much. Can be worse (e.g. draining/fertilizers/herbicides/plowing in wetlands). Depends on how you implement them.
> 
> ...


 Your asessments are always excellent. We need more like you.


----------



## Standsniper (Feb 7, 2011)

I have no problems with hunters using bait. It should be legal.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Yeah, thanx NA. I'm with poster Swampbuck. 

This 'deer food' continuum you devised is enlightening and perceptive:

Good.....................................................................Bad

Habitat Improvements ....... Food Plots ......Baiting ....Supplemental feeding


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

fairfax1 said:


> Yeah, thanx NA. I'm with poster Swampbuck.
> 
> *This 'deer food' continuum you devised is enlightening and perceptive:*
> 
> ...


 Agreed.


----------



## markbarth (Sep 30, 2008)

]I was a proud young man when I shot my first deer over bait with my bow... sorry.

No reason to be sorry....


----------



## Drisc13 (May 6, 2009)

Nick Adams said:


> Personally: Not interested in planting or hunting over them.
> 
> Professionally: Marginally better than baiting but not by much. Can be worse (e.g. draining/fertilizers/herbicides/plowing in wetlands). Depends on how you implement them.
> 
> ...


Hmmmm....let me play devils advocate:

"Habitat Improvements". What kind? How long do these "improvements" last? What about succession? What happens to the carrying capacity as the ecosystem ages? "Improvements"....for the deer, but what about the species that do better in a mature forest?

The habitat improvements meant to increase deer numbers are only temporary (ableit longer lasting), as well. Given time, that selective cut tract will become mature with a high canopy with little use to deer. In that way, habitat improvements are about in line with supplemental feeding...human actions designed to increase the population of deer. The better thing about feeding is that it can be done in specific spots during times of best need. It's also easier to deliver exactly what the deer need at the time.

...never as easy as it seems.....and I know this wasn't meant to be an end all representation!!!


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

Joe Archer said:


> *The fact that baiting is only a few short weeks per year, only adds to the value of its use as a tool to increase deer harvest and reduce population density. Minimal risk, for a significant decrease in population density. *
> *Only living deer will return to their normal feeding habits. *
> <----<<<


I started on this tonight, mostly because there wasn't anything else to read. However, I made it this far and have to say, *Joe Archer is 100% correct*!  Quoted above is probably one of the most common sense posts that I've read in the deer hunting section in a long time!!!

I didn't vote because there was nothing noted that I would vote for. Even living in NEL, right in the middle of the bTB zone, Joe Archer's post is exactly what's needed. Get rid of those worthless antler restrictions that they placed in this area last year, and start thinning out the REAL SCIENTIFICLY PROVEN deer that are carrying and passing it, THE BUCKS.

If they allowed limited baiting for the rifle season and muzzleloader seasons, there's what, approximately four (4) weeks (8%) out of fiftytwo (52) that a few may go to bait? Then fortyeight (48) weeks (92%), that those same few deer would be right back to their normal paterns. Non existent price to pay for an increased harvest in the bTB zone.

Thanks Joe Archer!


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Drisc13 said:


> Hmmmm....let me play devils advocate:
> 
> "Habitat Improvements". What kind? How long do these "improvements" last? What about succession? What happens to the carrying capacity as the ecosystem ages? "Improvements"....for the deer, but what about the species that do better in a mature forest?
> 
> ...


 When you speak of forestry, It is the modern replacement for forest fire and other causes of natural regeneration we have eliminated to protect life and property........From this and previous posts by NickAdams, I believe he is promoteing a more natural balance of self sustaining flora and fauna, Well at least as natural as it can be in this modern world....... How could one argue against that.

The deer do not need us to feed them, They have done just fine for 4,000,000 years.


----------



## ridgewalker (Jun 24, 2008)

The question is not necessarily do deer need us but do we need-value deer hunting as an activity? This is an important question if we are to honestly address the OP's question. Obviously this is not because baiting is required or absolutely not needed but because the discourse really becomes can we as hunters affort to splinter ourselves into many groups that favor or allow only one point of view or one method of legal hunting. If one particular method of hunting becomes permanently disallowed, what is to prevent all methods of hunting from becoming illegal. If not due to a disease issue, why not because many see it as not being popular; or they see it as inhumane. There are many reasons that an antihunter can create to demonstrate that hunting should not be allowed whether they hold any validity or not. When hunters give credence to the anti view that any method done in a legal or appropriate manner is bad and should be forbidden then hunters have begun the movement that will end the entire activity of hunting.

In order to continue the activity of hunting, I believe the activity requires the support of as many folks as possible. The activity requires the protection/promotion of law, the support of public hunting lands and their maintenance for its use, having access to hunting tools, etc. If the activity is reduced to one or just a couple of points of view or methods then its very viability as an available recreation will very much come into question. Do we as hunters really want to go there? To me that is the more appropriate question and answer to debates generated by polls such as this one.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

Drisc13 said:


> In that way, habitat improvements are about in line with supplemental feeding...human actions designed to increase the population of deer.


The intent may be the same but the methods and the results will be different. Habitat Improvements; increasing the amount of cover and natural browse, are much better in the long run for the deer than simply feeding them, particularly on poor habitat. Pushing more deer on marginal to poor habitat is an unstable ecoogical situation that will eventually collapse.

-na


----------



## Crit (Jun 26, 2010)

The bait ban has had no negative effects on deer harvest. Just ask the folks in DMU 452 or the entire NLP for that matter. They are such good hunters without bait, that there are no deer left.

The thing I cannot understand is why folks that whine about not seeing any deer, cry about too many deer being killed, or complain about the amount of antlerless permits would want


> a tool to increase deer harvest and reduce population density


 reinstituted. 

It's kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.


----------



## Sib (Jan 8, 2003)

Drisc13 said:


> Hmmmm....let me play devils advocate:
> 
> "Habitat Improvements". What kind? How long do these "improvements" last? What about succession? What happens to the carrying capacity as the ecosystem ages? "Improvements"....for the deer, but what about the species that do better in a mature forest?
> 
> ...


Habitat improvements aren't exclusive to saw work. They're also not a onetime deal. It's an on going process. Most of my work has been planting varieties that address two of the three basic needs most animals require, food and shelter. I personally like a balance of some old growth, some open spaces and some dense cover. But I don't do habitat exclusively for deer, whitetail are only one of the species I'm interested in helping establish and whitetails tend to find their way onto improvements designed for other species, like seagulls flock to a fishing boat. I've got a pair of owls that likes to hang out and through some improvements have nesting mallards, two of the recent highlights from the past year. Most of us, because of land size, are fairly limited in addressing macro issues, but some of use are interested in diversity don't see a reason to stack a land strictly for a single species that if left uncheck can be a nuisance. Good topic, and I do think sometimes people are shortsighted when catering to a single species. 

While I agree with Nick Adams and his arrangement, I'd adjust the weight of his graphic to more accurately emphasize my beliefs, which is simply an opinion:

Good <----------------------------------------------------> Bad
Habitat Improvements ..................................... Food Plots .. Baiting . Supplemental feeding


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

Crit said:


> The bait ban has had no negative effects on deer harvest. Just ask the folks in DMU 452 or the entire NLP for that matter. They are such good hunters without bait, that there are no deer left.
> 
> The thing I cannot understand is why folks that whine about not seeing any deer, cry about too many deer being killed, or complain about the amount of antlerless permits would want reinstituted.
> 
> It's kind of like cutting off your nose to spite your face.


There are indeed deer left in the NLP, as well as the TB zone. I have been hunting there for the last 5 years and I take a deer every year. Without having to put out bait. I just spend some time and boot leather finding where the deer are. I hunt exclusively public land. Many of today's hunters don't want to exert any more effort than needed to hunt deer. Those hunters are usually the whiners when it comes to deer hunting and the lack of deer. I enjoy hunting the TB zone because there are very few hunters left because of the baiting ban. The hunting there is much better without baiting.


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

skipper34 said:


> There are indeed deer left in the NLP, as well as the TB zone. I have been hunting there for the last 5 years and I take a deer every year. Without having to put out bait. I just spend some time and boot leather finding where the deer are. I hunt exclusively public land. Many of today's hunters don't want to exert any more effort than needed to hunt deer. Those hunters are usually the whiners when it comes to deer hunting and the lack of deer. I enjoy hunting the TB zone because there are very few hunters left because of the baiting ban. The hunting there is much better without baiting.


 keep it quiet please. We dont need the hunters to return yet


----------



## Crit (Jun 26, 2010)

skipper34 said:


> There are indeed deer left in the NLP, as well as the TB zone. I have been hunting there for the last 5 years and I take a deer every year. Without having to put out bait. I just spend some time and boot leather finding where the deer are. I hunt exclusively public land. Many of today's hunters don't want to exert any more effort than needed to hunt deer. Those hunters are usually the whiners when it comes to deer hunting and the lack of deer. I enjoy hunting the TB zone because there are very few hunters left because of the baiting ban. The hunting there is much better without baiting.


Skipper, I forget to put a :lol: and  and a :evil: into my post. I was being quite tongue and cheek regarding the no deer in the NLP.



> The bait ban has had no negative effects on deer harvest. Just ask the folks in DMU 452 or the entire NLP for that matter. They are such good hunters without bait, that there are no deer left. :lol::evil:


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

skipper34 said:


> There are indeed deer left in the NLP, as well as the TB zone. I have been hunting there for the last 5 years and I take a deer every year. Without having to put out bait. I just spend some time and boot leather finding where the deer are. I hunt exclusively public land. Many of today's hunters don't want to exert any more effort than needed to hunt deer. Those hunters are usually the whiners when it comes to deer hunting and the lack of deer. I enjoy hunting the TB zone because there are very few hunters left because of the baiting ban. The hunting there is much better without baiting.


Well Skipper, I'll agree with you that there are "indeed deer left" in the TB zone. However, few and according to the DNR, there's still way too many of them.

No matter rather a hunter doesn't want to _"exert any more effort than needed"_ or, rather they're a hunter that spends _"time and boot leather finding where the deer are"_, the herd is way down in the TB zone. Now, for the sake of those of us that reside perminantly in this area, shoot more than just one next year if you hunt back up here. Better yet, let us know where all those deer are, and we can help to eliminate them. Thus doing the state, DNR, local dairy herd operators, beef farmers, the deer herd itself and everyone else a favor.

Rather you see deer or, that they're thicker than spat where you hunt, start helping out scientificly by helping to eliminate the herd. If baiting helps reduce the herd even further, then I suggest that you support baiting and help the DNR to eliminate/reduce bTB in this area.

Don't forget, kill all the bucks that you possibly can. The DNR has the SCIENTIFIC FACTS THAT PROVE, that bucks are the biggest contributor to the spread of bTB.


----------



## Ole Spike (Nov 22, 2004)

I have always been able to do pretty good just by thorough scouting and using hunting pressure to my advantage. Don't need to bait to kill nice bucks.


----------



## ENCORE (Sep 19, 2005)

Ole Spike said:


> I have always been able to do pretty good just by thorough scouting and using hunting pressure to my advantage. Don't need to bait to kill nice bucks.


Certainly you're talking about an area other than the TB zone? It also isn't a necessity to use bait to take a deer. However, if by using bait in the TB zone, it will help hunters to further reduce the herd, why isn't it being utilized to help science?


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

ENCORE said:


> Well Skipper, I'll agree with you that there are "indeed deer left" in the TB zone. However, few and according to the DNR, there's still way too many of them.
> 
> No matter rather a hunter doesn't want to _"exert any more effort than needed"_ or, rather they're a hunter that spends _"time and boot leather finding where the deer are"_, the herd is way down in the TB zone. Now, for the sake of those of us that reside perminantly in this area, shoot more than just one next year if you hunt back up here. Better yet, let us know where all those deer are, and we can help to eliminate them. Thus doing the state, DNR, local dairy herd operators, beef farmers, the deer herd itself and everyone else a favor.
> 
> ...


Being that you reside in the NLP, you have far more insight than I do regarding the deer herd in your area. I make no claims that I know of every deer "hotspot" up there. Sounds like you have a serious bone to pick with our DNR. I don't. I just go up and hunt. Without bait. I will leave the politics to you and whoever else. I simply stated my opinion, which is what this forum is for. You don't have to agree with it.


----------



## Spartan88 (Nov 14, 2008)

The experts have had over ten years to develop a bTB oral vaccine, where is it?


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

SO Fairfacts, you are saying that everyone that is not against baiting is a rationalizing, illogical, selfish and stupid hunter? 

Pretty broad brush you paint with.


----------



## skipper34 (Oct 13, 2005)

Rasputin said:


> SO Fairfacts, you are saying that everyone that is not against baiting is a rationalizing, illogical, selfish and stupid hunter?
> 
> Pretty broad brush you paint with.


The only time that I am against baiting is when it is done illegally. Those that do so are stealing from other hunters.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> Munsterlndr said:
> 
> 
> > There is a marked distaste among the non-hunting public for hunters who seem obsessed with antlers, just to be able to put them on the wall.


I don't doubt it if that's the way it's spun.


----------



## bentduck (Aug 19, 2003)

fairfax1 said:


> Im sorry but that spin within post #126 is a tired old parlor-game that has been bandied about on this chatroom for 2 ½ yrs. It dresses itself up with a little different lipstick everytime there is one of those Ella Sharp Park culls or for that matter any urban deer shoot. The deer-chumming folks try to morph legitimate police functions of government into a thin argument that if officials can do something in their mandated governance function then hobbyist seeking recreation should be able to do the same.
> 
> It is utter nonsense. As is the mimimizer pitch that violating our game laws is nothing more than a rolling stop on the way to the drugstore.
> 
> ...


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> I don't doubt it if that's the way it's spun.


It has nothing to do with spinning, that's the way it's perceived by a large portion of the non-hunting public. 

When the subject of hunting comes up on forums that have nothing to do with hunting, invariably someone will post that they are against hunting, someone else will post that they know hunters and don't mind hunting if the hunters are utilizing the meat. Someone else will complain about killing things just to put antlers on the wall. Of those three positions, from what I have seen, most people support the second one and object to the third one. Whether the third one is an accurate representation of how a lot of hunters approach hunting is immaterial, when the public sees magazine covers with trophy bucks on the cover or TV shows with the host saying "Man, what a buck...look at those G2's!", the perception is trophies, not stewardship.


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

the problem is many hunters feel the law wasn't right to begin with. for years we had QDM people telling us how they are pulling the deer off neighbors properties and concentrating them on their properties than CWD shows up and the DNR bans baiting and gives food plots a free pass. if they would have banned both methods you would have had more hunters respect the law. if you want to compare it to speeding it's like the state saying if you can only afford a cheap car. you can only drive 60 mph but if you have an expensive safer car you can drive as fast as you want most people with a cheap car are going to break the law.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

In post #141 this rhetorical statement was offered:

_"SO...........you are saying that everyone that is not against baiting is a rationalizing, illogical, selfish and stupid hunter? 
_


A rhetorical response: _"????????????"_


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

poz said:


> the problem is many hunters feel the law wasn't right to begin with. for years we had QDM people telling us how they are pulling the deer off neighbors properties and concentrating them on their properties than CWD shows up and the DNR bans baiting and gives food plots a free pass. if they would have banned both methods you would have had more hunters respect the law. if you want to compare it to speeding it's like the state saying if you can only afford a cheap car. you can only drive 60 mph but if you have an expensive safer car you can drive as fast as you want most people with a cheap car are going to break the law.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Great points here! Some people wanted baiting banned so bad for their own selfish reasons that they didn't and still don't want the ban questioned or lifted.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

I support a ban on baiting in those county's where a disease has been confirmed. I have been saying that for three years now.

fairfax1
I see that you are not trying to tear down any fences or rebuild any bridges. Well...


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

fairfax1 said:


> In post #141 this rhetorical statement was offered:
> 
> _"SO...........you are saying that everyone that is not against baiting is a rationalizing, illogical, selfish and stupid hunter? _
> 
> ...


 
Thanks for confirming.


----------



## dooman (Dec 18, 2009)

Just an honest question. How would you word legislation to ban food plots without ensnaring an individuals' lawn and or garden? I think it would be a legal nightmare that any good lawyer could get you out of.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

dooman said:


> Just an honest question. How would you word legislation to ban food plots without ensnaring an individuals' lawn and or garden? I think it would be a legal nightmare that any good lawyer could get you out of.


Simple answer, you wouldn't ban food plots, you would ban hunting within a certain distance of planted crops. And once again, for the record, I would not be in favor of such a prohibition.


----------



## dooman (Dec 18, 2009)

Couldn't that possibly ban a farmer from hunting his own property, if he has no woodlots? What about crop damage permits?


----------



## poz (Nov 12, 2004)

you would think that all these guys with foodplots would just stop planting if the DNR made it illegal, but I bet you, you would have some that would still do it. just like baiters.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## dooman (Dec 18, 2009)

There has to be some wording to the legislation. What would you propose?

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

dooman said:


> Couldn't that possibly ban a farmer from hunting his own property, if he has no woodlots? What about crop damage permits?


It would not apply to crop damage permits as they are already outside of the regular license rules. It might prevent a farmer from hunting his property if his crops have not been harvested yet.


Again, I'm not suggesting this as something I would support but if you want wording, just make it illegal to hunt within 250 yards of an artificially occurring food source.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

The Gaston/Alphonse minuet in post #150:

*He:* "SO...........you are saying that everyone that is not against baiting is a rationalizing, illogical, selfish and stupid hunter? 
*Me:* A rhetorical response: "????????????" 
*He:* "Thanks for confirming." 

Me again: 
Confirming what Rasputin?
I don't get it. 
Your posts puzzle. 

I scoured this long thread to determine your source for the above quote and cannot find it. 
In fact, the ONLY poster who states: _"......everyone not against baiting is a rationalizing, illogical, selfish, and stupid hunter."_ is, well, you.

YOU are the only one who hoists up such a description.

Partner, what's up with that?


----------



## dooman (Dec 18, 2009)

Munster, I admit ignorance to crop damage permit regs. but they cannot be legally filled over bait, or can they?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

dooman said:


> There has to be some wording to the legislastion. What would you propose?
> 
> _OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


Just like with most types of law, INTENT has to be established. The law itself can be worded as simple as "Planting food crops for the purpose of feeding wildlife is prohibited" and then a judge would make the call based on the prosecutions ability to offer up proof of that intent. It's truly no different than what the current bait laws provide as far as verbiage.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

dooman said:


> Munster, I admit ignorance to crop damage permit regs. but they cannot be legally filled over bait, or can they?


No they can't but they are outside of the regular regulations and if the DNR wanted to they could allow them to be used over bait. The DNR?NRC can make whatever rule they want regarding how those permits can be used. They allow herd culling to take place with control permits over bait currently by municipalities.


----------



## dooman (Dec 18, 2009)

I think proof of intent to attract wildlife, is far more difficult to prove with "foodplots" than "bait". I'm just wondering if this is why foodplots were not included in the present feeding ban. Again, I think it would be a legal nightmare for the state.


----------



## dooman (Dec 18, 2009)

Munster, a certain distance sounds interesting, but 250yds might not let me hunt a small 10 acre tree farm in S MI that has clover between the trees. The clover was planted years ago before I hunted the property.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

dooman said:


> I think proof of intent to attract wildlife, is far more difficult to prove with "foodplots" than "bait". I'm just wondering if this is why foodplots were not included in the present feeding ban. Again, I think it would be a legal nightmare for the state.


Same difficulty level other laws currently have as well(ie: 1st as opposed to 2nd Degree Murder where premeditation must be determined). The level of difficulty to prosecute has little to do with the reason for, or the verbiage within a written law.


----------



## dooman (Dec 18, 2009)

Degree's of murder might be worth the effort and expense of prosecution as opposed to wildlife law regs.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

dooman said:


> Degree's of murder might be worth the effort and expense of prosecution as opposed to wildlife law regs.


That was merely an example of the differences in difficulty that some laws have when it comes to intent. In other words, a law does not rely on the amount of difficulty involved to convict when it is being written. 

A great example would be the current and recently added 350fps limit law on the books for crossbows. I'm quite sure the authorities aren't too concerned about the prosecutions ability to convict when writing a law:lol:


----------



## Drisc13 (May 6, 2009)

All these proposed laws/regulations are a joke without a systematic and effective way to enforce. We simply shouldn't create new rules that can't be properly enforced. The only way to enforce is to raise more money for time for CO's in the field....

I'd be willing to pay $50 a license with all the extra money going to effectively enforce the current laws we have now...


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Drisc13 said:


> All these proposed laws/regulations are a joke without a systematic and effective way to enforce. We simply shouldn't create new rules that can't be properly enforced. The only way to enforce is to raise more money for time for CO's in the field....
> 
> I'd be willing to pay $50 a license with all the extra money going to effectively enforce the current laws we have now...


Just to clarify, I don't think anyone is proposing that food plots be banned or that any new regulations be enacted. In fact, the basis of this thread is the contrary, the repeal of a virtually unenforceable and un-needed prohibition on baiting.


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

Michihunter said:


> A great example would be the current and recently added 350fps limit law on the books for crossbows. I'm quite sure the authorities aren't too concerned about the prosecutions ability to convict when writing a law:lol:


 
From the DNR's website:
*Are there any restrictions on the velocity at which crossbows can shoot bolts?*
No, a previous restriction on the velocity has been removed as of the 2010 hunting seasons.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

Michihunter said:


> That was merely an example of the differences in difficulty that some laws have when it comes to intent. In other words, a law does not rely on the amount of difficulty involved to convict when it is being written.
> 
> A great example would be the current and recently added 350fps limit law on the books for crossbows. I'm quite sure the authorities aren't too concerned about the prosecutions ability to convict when writing a law:lol:


I heard a co. tell a friend that it was his job to pass out citations and the courts job to sort them out.


----------



## muliefever (Jul 2, 2007)

feedinggrounds said:


> I heard a co. tell a friend that it was his job to pass out citations and the courts job to sort them out.


 
you are correct! the down side is that in "most" small comunities like where I live for example. I personally know of several hefty offenses and repeat offenders that were given a slap on the wrist, because.. The DA happens to be a friend or family member. We have a CO in Mason county that regardless if you like him or not.. He does his job! And that is what he was hired to do. If you don't like him, it is propbably because he has nailed ya!..


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

I agree with your earlier assessment that the vast majority of the hunting public has no idea baiting is illegal.
With that said, I have a hard time believing that the typical non-hunter is so disengaged from hunting issues that they don't know about baiting laws, yet they make distinctions between meat hunters, trophy hunters, etc.



Munsterlndr said:


> It has nothing to do with spinning, that's the way it's perceived by a large portion of the non-hunting public.
> 
> When the subject of hunting comes up on forums that have nothing to do with hunting, invariably someone will post that they are against hunting, someone else will post that they know hunters and don't mind hunting if the hunters are utilizing the meat. Someone else will complain about killing things just to put antlers on the wall. Of those three positions, from what I have seen, most people support the second one and object to the third one. Whether the third one is an accurate representation of how a lot of hunters approach hunting is immaterial, when the public sees magazine covers with trophy bucks on the cover or TV shows with the host saying "Man, what a buck...look at those G2's!", the perception is trophies, not stewardship.


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

Personally, if they do lift the baiting ban I would like to see any contingency plan for confirmed diseases a little more geographically widespread than just limiting it to the county where the disease was confirmed. 
The deer do not know the county boundries so I think it would be more appropriate to apply the contingency plan to an area within X miles of the confirmed site with X being as large a number as possible within reason.




6inchtrack said:


> I support a ban on baiting in those county's where a disease has been confirmed. I have been saying that for three years now.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

50 Miles, one piece that we hunt is 2 miles from a county line.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> when the public sees magazine covers with trophy bucks on the cover or TV shows with the host saying "Man, what a buck...look at those G2's!", the perception is trophies, not stewardship.


I guess I had never considered that the non hunting public was aware of what a G2 was, silly me.

Munster, your montra concerning anything regarding MAR proposals has been to portray them, and the advocates, as nothing more than "just about big antlers". For some reason I doubt very much that your tone changes much if MARs comes up in conversations with non hunters...but hey...I could be wrong, after all I didn't know non hunters knew what a G2 was.

Big T


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

http://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/...nce/14324.html


http://www.farmanddairy.com/columns/...-do/14293.html


If you treat deer like cattle they will get sick like cattle.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> I guess I had never considered that the non hunting public was aware of what a G2 was, silly me.
> 
> Munster, your montra concerning anything regarding MAR proposals has been to portray them, and the advocates, as nothing more than "just about big antlers". For some reason I doubt very much that your tone changes much if MARs comes up in conversations with non hunters...but hey...I could be wrong, after all I didn't know non hunters knew what a G2 was.
> 
> Big T


Tony -

I think you mean mantra but you illustrate my point beautifully, the non-hunting public does not know what a G2 is, what they see on the cable show when they flick by is some hunter grabbing a deer by the rack pointing to it and speaking in a language that is foreign to them but it's clearly the antlers that he's excited about. 20 years ago when they saw hunters portrayed, it was about bringing home dinner, which is part of the American ethos. Nobody talked about G2's. Now, the cult of the antler has evolved to the point where an entirely new language has taken over describing what a successful hunt is for all too many hunters. Portraying success by estimating the number of inches or whether it's a book buck, does nothing to improve the image of hunters with the non-hunting public.


----------



## Beaverhunter2 (Jan 22, 2005)

My biggest issue with baiting is the fact that the violators essentially go uncaught/unpunished; and those that follow the law get to watch squirrels and chickadees all season. I hunt in an extensive area of private land in the Bovine TB area and we hunted for a number of years during my youth without bait- and we saw and harvested deer. Baiting started to really take hold in the area and our sightings dropped off to nothing. We started baiting and, low and behold, we started seeing deer again- right up to Day 2 or 3 of the rifle season. Once the guns started going off, the deer started to feed only at night. Then TB came and baiting was banned. We stopped because 1. we believe in following the laws and 2. we were hoping we might get back to the old days where, without bait in the woods, deer moved relatively normally and we could see some all season long.

Well we did go "back in time", but only to the point where we see nothing and the deer spend the season on the bait law violators' lands.

One interesting thing I noticed while reading this thread- no one who said that baiting should be banned in areas where "disease is confirmed" and allowed in other areas actually has their location showing as somewhere in the Bovine TB area. Guess if it's allowed where they hunt, they don't care about other areas, huh? I think most folks would agree that the outbreak came from baiting and supplemental feeding causing a significant overpopulation situation. With baiting and feeding possibly returning in other parts of the LP, don't you mean you want want it legalized in areas where "disease has not been confirmed yet?" 

Unless baiting is banned completely, it might as well be legal everywhere. JMO

John

BTW Re: the "2 gallons spread around a 10'x10' area" joke. Give me a break. They tried that in our area, too. Not a lot of success. How many 10'x10' areas worth of bait are there in the semi-truck loads I saw being delivered to some of the camps in the area?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> the non-hunting public does not know what a G2 is, what they see on the cable show when they flick by is some hunter grabbing a deer by the rack pointing to it and speaking in a language that is foreign to them but it's clearly the antlers that he's excited about. 20 years ago when they saw hunters portrayed, it was about bringing home dinner, which is part of the American ethos.


Sure Jim, if you say so. I'm not sure if the non hunting public spends much time viewing Versus or The Outdoor Channel but, if they stop long enough to watch the hunter get excited about the G2s it's probably because the G2's got THEIR attention.
I don't recall many successful hunting shows 20 years ago that were about "meat hunting", any that were bothered to be watched featured specimens of species that were in all their spectacular glory, and that usually included big G2s.
Let's not kid ourselves, Mort Neff's and Fred Trost's highest rated shows focused on big G2s and Mort's been gone over 20 years.
Just a guess on my part, but I'm willing to bet that the fine non hunting residents of Troy wouldn't have been gnashing their teeth and renting their clothes if it was a spike that got poached in the park last fall and not their well adorned turdy pointer. Just sayin.
Everybody likes big antlers, non hunters included. If the only place that they can be viewed on a regular basis is on un hunt able property, then they may begin to figure out that if they're not seeing them on pubic hunting areas it's because of hunters.
BTW, I did mean mantra. We can always count on you Jim, to remind us of your superior intellect.

Big T


----------



## radiohead (Apr 11, 2006)

To suggest that someone doesn't know that baiting is illegal yet knows what a G2 is has to be one of the most ridiculous things I have ever read around here.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

Whatever Tony. I don't know if you are missing my point intentionally or whether you truly are unaware of how much of the general non-hunting public feels about trophy hunting compared to hunting for meat. No point in continuing to debate the point but if you think that the non-hunting public is generally supportive of trophy hunting and does not draw a distinction between hunting for food and hunting just to put another set of antlers on the wall, you are incredibly naive.


----------



## anonymous7242016 (Aug 16, 2008)

Awe my post got deleted. Boooo. I thought it was funny.


----------



## wfransee (Mar 24, 2008)

Not surprised! Many of the "moderators" of these forums delete posts that challenge or conflict with their own ideas...and the ones they don't think are funny.

_OutdoorHub Mobile, the information engine of the outdoors_


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> da Appleknocker said:
> 
> 
> > Hey guys just got back from Sandusky Michigan. Spent the day visiting with my parents. My father is 87 and my mother is 86. It is a two hour drive one way for my wife and I, but we do it three times a month. Why? Because we love them very much and we dont think they will be around much longer. I know its selfish on my part but I know they love the visits also. Oh, Im sorry, this does not fit into this thread. Let me see, maybe I can make an argument for fitting it into the topic of discussion. At the risk of having the thread closed, bear with me. Although I enjoy the visits with my parents I refuse to visit them when I am sick or feel I am coming down with something. But, in the absence of disease, I love the visits. Now, if I used Dr. Schmidts and Russ Masons philosophy, I would never be allowed to visit my parents. How distructive this would be for my wife and myself not to mention the disappointment of my parents. Their argument is just void of common sense and it is creating more harm to hunting than one can imagine. After the last NRC meeting I walked with a new congressman out to the parking lot. As we walked and talked I told him that the problem with wildlife management today is that many of our current top level managers have been educated beyond their intelligence. He seemed confused so I explained myself, when someone allows themselves to be educated by books at the expense of all common sense then they become educated beyond their intelligence. As a good friend of mine from Champion Michigan once said, Michigan Tech has ruined a lot of good truck drivers. Thank you David Hammel. The baiting and feeding ban in areas void of disease has done irrepairable ( I think you mean irreparable) harm to deer hunting in Michigan. It has divided hunters and hurt populations in places that did not need it. I know this will cause some to roast me but I dont care. It is the truth and it is better to be hated for telling the truth than loved for spreading a lie. Trespass by conservation order.


So what line of work do you believe Doctors Shmitt and Mason would be in had they not got edumacated?
I'm sure that the good Doctors wouldn't have a problem with baiting if the deer all got their shots, used hand/hoof sanitizer, didn't crap on the table, and wore masks around family and friends when they had the sniffles. All simple solutions that can be learned watching daytime television.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

6inchtrack said:


> 50 Miles, one piece that we hunt is 2 miles from a county line.


How is one to know where the "50 mile" line is?

County boundaries are well defined and easily recognized.


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

Tom Morang said:


> How is one to know where the "50 mile" line is?
> 
> County boundaries are well defined and easily recognized.


Maybe a one county buffer around all infected counties.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

> NoWake said:
> 
> 
> > Maybe a one county buffer around all infected counties.


What would you propose for counties bordered by lakes?

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-8_SQWfpT8"]YouTube - swimming deer[/ame]


----------



## triplelunger (Dec 21, 2009)

QDMAMAN said:


> What would you propose for counties bordered by lakes?
> 
> YouTube - swimming deer


I think a "no snagging" rule would be appropriate.


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

QDMAMAN said:


> What would you propose for counties bordered by lakes?


Armed marine border patrol.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

NoWake said:


> Maybe a one county buffer around all infected counties.


Good idea



QDMAMAN said:


> What would you propose for counties bordered by lakes?


Still a county line, one side NO the other YES


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

da Appleknocker said:


> The baiting and feeding ban in areas void of disease has done irrepairable harm to deer hunting in Michigan. It has divided hunters and hurt populations in places that did not need it.


Appleknocker - what is it that convinces you that it wasn't the practice of baiting in the first place that was more divisive to hunters? Sure seems that way to me.

You just know that it's not far off for someone to launch a petition drive to get a bait ban on the ballot for public referendum in Michigan. Anyone care to wager on the outcome? Not that I'd like to see this happen, as that would open a nasty kettle of fish. Far better for hunters to take the lead in getting this practice in our rearview mirror, than to allow it to be outlawed by the public at large.


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Jeeeeeezamighty!!! 

After years of posting on these chatrooms why hadn't I thought of this myself: _".........what is it that convinces you that it wasn't the practice of baiting in the first place that wasn't more divisive to hunters? Sure seems that way to me."_

Of course, of course........nice catch FarmLegend.

Only the 'doe permit' controversies of the '50's can compare to the angst created when some hunters began to dump stuff in the woods to lure in deer. It was the use of deer-bait that caused the current divisiveness.


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

QDMAMAN said:


> So what line of work do you believe Doctors Shmitt and Mason would be in had they not got edumacated?
> I'm sure that the good Doctors wouldn't have a problem with baiting if the deer all got their shots, used hand/hoof sanitizer, didn't crap on the table, and wore masks around family and friends when they had the sniffles. All simple solutions that can be learned watching daytime television.


 But QDMAMAN back on 1/19/11 in the habitat forum you condoned and encouraged the construction of water holes the size of a laundry tub. Hmm you did not seemed too worried about germs, saliva or prions then... but worried about masks and sanitizer now :16suspectjust sayin


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

farmlegend said:


> Appleknocker - what is it that convinces you that it wasn't the practice of baiting in the first place that wasn't more divisive to hunters? Sure seems that way to me.
> 
> You just know that it's not far off for someone to launch a petition drive to get a bait ban on the ballot for public referendum in Michigan. Anyone care to wager on the outcome? Not that I'd like to see this happen, as that would open a nasty kettle of fish. Far better for hunters to take the lead in getting this practice in our rearview mirror, than to allow it to be outlawed by the public at large.


Last year you were posting stuff on here where you wanted your form of baiting legalized by allowing the use of minerals? You've got to love the hipocracy. 

I actually think that if there was a ballot drive to disallow all feeding and baiting of deer that it would get shot down big time by the voters. The anti-hunters wouldn't even bother to go after that one. Instead they will likely target trapping, running animals with dogs or other legitimate outdoor persuits with small followings. They will certainly also throw everything they have against any new hunting seasons that may get proposed.


----------



## TwodogsNate (Jul 30, 2009)

Liver and Onions said:


> This comes from post #192.
> 
> Very interesting indeed.
> 
> L & O


 
Very interesting.........


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

Trophy Specialist said:


> Last year you were posting stuff on here where you wanted your form of baiting legalized by allowing the use of minerals? You've got to love the hipocracy.
> 
> I actually think that if there was a ballot drive to disallow all feeding and baiting of deer that it would get shot down big time by the voters.


I assume you're talking about "hypocrisy". And you're presenting it here way, way out of context.

As to the second part, you're twisting again by including feeding. Make it a straightup ballot proposal on baiting for the purpose of harvesting deer, and only the most deluded optimist would forecast a close result.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

I don't see how you can separate baiting from feeding and say that you support one and not the other, at least in terms of disease prevention. 

A majority of hunters used bait prior to the ban, that would certainly be evidence of widespread support for the practice, so those who were complaining about it were in a distinct minority. It's not a particularly divisive issue in the UP where the practice is still legal, which would tend to contradict the notion that the practice is more controversial then the ban. 

I think you would be very surprised what the results of a public referendum might be, there were hundreds of thousands of non-hunters who used to engage in recreational viewing prior to the ban. I witnessed one older gentleman break down in tears speaking at an NRC meeting over the fact that he could no longer put out some food for deer, so that he and his wife could watch them from the dining room window. When it was banned statewide in Wisconsin, it did not take the legislature there very long to overturn the ban and politicians are certainly cognizant of where the public stands on an issue. 

From what I can see, the guys who are the most vocal about keeping the ban in place are the same ones that are planting food plots and are concerned about a neighbor using bait to draw deer off of their property, which is essentially the motivation that many of them have for planting plots in the first place. Sure seems like something of a double standard.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

[


> QUOTE=feedinggrounds;3548108]But QDMAMAN back on 1/19/11 in the habitat forum you condoned and encouraged the construction of water holes the size of a laundry tub. Hmm you did not seemed too worried about germs, saliva or prions then... but worried about masks and sanitizer now :16suspectjust sayin


[/QUOTE]

You obviously missed the point and context of my response to daA.
You have however spurred a thought! It might be worthwhile to add a dilution of Listerine to those laundry tubs.:idea: Wonder if it's legal?


----------



## Rasputin (Jan 13, 2009)

QDMAMAN said:


> [


You obviously missed the point and context of my response to daA.
You have however spurred a thought! It might be worthwhile to add a dilution of Listerine to those laundry tubs.:idea: Wonder if it's legal?[/QUOTE]


Salt would be cheaper.:evilsmile


----------



## feedinggrounds (Jul 21, 2009)

QDMAMAN said:


> [


You obviously missed the point and context of my response to daA.
You have however spurred a thought! It might be worthwhile to add a dilution of Listerine to those laundry tubs.:idea: Wonder if it's legal?[/QUOTE]
No don't think so, Don't do as I do, do as I say. Comes to mind!:lol:


----------



## Trophy Specialist (Nov 30, 2001)

farmlegend said:


> I assume you're talking about "hypocrisy". And you're presenting it here way, way out of context.
> 
> As to the second part, you're twisting again by including feeding. Make it a straightup ballot proposal on baiting for the purpose of harvesting deer, and only the most deluded optimist would forecast a close result.


What did I take out of context? You used bait in the form of minerals before the baiting ban, then after it was banned you wanted your form or baiting (the use of minerals) to be an exception to the law. That is about as hypocritical as you can get especially since you have always expressed your opposition to baiting on this forum.

By the way, even though you had a spelling error on your post I wont point it out because that would be hypocrisy with my sloppy use of English on this forum.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Heres a cow that had Bovine TB.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

NoWake said:


> BTW.......chumming is chumming wether the plants roots are on the premises or not.


Sometimes it's the "roots" we're talking about











I might be mistaken, (after all, I'm not an "old farm boy") but I'd be willing to bet an ATV spreader and a bag of BioLogic that *MonsterBuck Turnip and Sugar Beet seed* wasn't developed for the people eatin' market.



KPC


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

Swampbuck:

Did that cow have *bovine* TB or *cervid* TB?

:mischeif:

KPC


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

swampbuck said:


> Heres a cow that had Bovine TB.


Guys, we are eating here


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> Heres a cow that had Bovine TB.


Not to be a kill joy but that's actually a picture of a cow from Australia that died of grass tetany, a central nervous system disorder caused by lack of magnesium. 

http://article.wn.com/view/2009/07/16/Cattle_dying_because_grass_is_too_lush/


The other picture, which was upsetting 6Inches dinner, came from a TB positive cow in California, where the primary source of bTB is from cattle illegally imported from Mexico.


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

munster, There was a bunch of tb info there so I thought that was what it had...........Here's one with Btb


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> munster, There was a bunch of tb info there so I thought that was what it had...........Here's one with Btb


From New Zealand.


----------



## OO7 (Apr 30, 2008)

Without reading any of the post yet and just looking at the chart for the poll Ive come up with this observation! THE Numbers are approximately 2 to 1 (252 to 122) for baiting where there isnt any sickness found in the herd. Which make total sense ist that about the same ratio that has always baited?? Bottom line baiting produces all of the listed reason for no baiting.
I always have been and always will oppose baiting! The only thing I wanna drag THRU the woods is an animal Ive harvested!!


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Come on munster.....They dont take picture of them here.:lol::lol: I am sure the look about the same though.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

OO7 said:


> Without reading any of the post yet and just looking at the chart for the poll Ive come up with this observation! THE Numbers are approximately 2 to 1 (252 to 122) for baiting where there isnt any sickness found in the herd. Which make total sense ist that about the same ratio that has always baited?? Bottom line baiting produces all of the listed reason for no baiting.
> I always have been and always will oppose baiting! The only thing I wanna drag THRU the woods is an animal Ive harvested!!


What I find amazing is that only 14 out of those 122 were concerned with the disease potential aspect of baiting. Yet it seems that's all we ever hear about from the opponents of baiting. Go figure, huh?


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

If cattle & dairy farmers don't want their herds to contract bTB, then they should take preventative measures to prevent contact between cattle feed and deer. Pretty simple.

For the last ten years APHIS and USDA have been recommending that farmers fence areas where cattle feed is stored. They even initiated a cost sharing program that about 40 farms in the TB area took advantage of.










Thinking that eliminating baiting is going to solve the bTB problem is just plain silly. Deer like cattle feed. A GPS collar study in the TB area showed that deer regularly visit farms within their home range, one deer visiting 10 different farms and several deer visiting as many as three different farms in one day. Every time those deer visit a farm and eat feed that is given to cattle, the potential for the spread of disease is increased. The solution? Make cattle feed inaccessible to deer. The type of fence pictured above cost on average $6,500. Monitoring of the fences put in place under the cost sharing program did not show a single instance of deer penetrating the fence and accessing stored feed. 

You want to stop the spread of bTB and the threat that it poses to the cattle & dairy industry? Then make sure pictures like these are a thing of the past. Fence your feed!


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

The fencing could also protect the deer from infected cattle herds...Works both ways.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> There's a Michigan TB deer in the bio hazard bag. I dont know if the have bait there though.
> 
> 
> 
> I can probably find more pictures if thats not enough.......


Wrong....again. It was a suspect deer that tested negative at the lab.
All of nearly 300 killed on this property, with an average age of 4.5, were tested with one positive.:yikes:
No bait on this well managed property but the folks lined up on the outside of the fence lines are using plenty...so I'm told.

Big T


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

QDMAMAN said:


> Wrong....again. It was a suspect deer that tested negative at the lab.
> All of nearly 300 killed on this property, with an average age of 4.5, were tested with one positive.:yikes:
> No bait on this well managed property but the folks lined up on the outside of the fence lines are using plenty...so I'm told.
> 
> Big T


Interesting statement considering the 'gut/bait piles' described in the other thread. Of course I'm sure that was said with tongue firmly planted in cheek right?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

instant tb test must still need some work then.......Too bad they didnt feel the same about baiting before 1994.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> instant tb test must still need some work then.......Too bad they didnt feel the same about baiting before 1994.



Wrong...again. As soon as a deer is suspect it is bagged and the on site test is scrapped. No need for the further chance of contaminating the area and putting those in the room at unnecessary risk.
To bad all of the other "sportsmen" in the tb zone don't take the ban as serious as the TLC.

Big T


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> To bad all of the other "sportsmen" in the tb zone don't take the ban as serious as the TLC.


:lol: Yeah, they take it so seriously that they plant food plots that concentrate deer, in the middle of the TB zone. :lol:


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> :lol: Yeah, they take it so seriously that they plant food plots that concentrate deer, in the middle of the TB zone. :lol:


1 deer in nearly 300 with an average age of 4.5.


----------



## 6inchtrack (Sep 29, 2008)

QDMAMAN said:


> 1 deer in nearly 300 with an average age of 4.5.


1 deer with CWD (and in a pen yet) in a couple million deer.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> 1 deer in nearly 300 with an average age of 4.5.


One deer that was potentially feeding in their food plots and passing the disease to other deer or visiting farms in the area and infecting cattle feed, threatening the dairy industry. If the goal is to stop the spread of bTB, why take the risk of concentrating deer unnaturally?


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

No offence to you bigT, But as far as TLC is concerned, my opinion is that they will say whatever they think will make them look good.

I was refering to the new tb test. Allegedly it showed positive and further testing came back negative......So it needs further work. I hope they sent all of the heads in for testing instead of relying on the new instant test.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

QDMAMAN said:


> ..................
> To bad all of the other "sportsmen" in the tb zone don't take the ban as serious as the TLC.
> 
> Big T


I am trying to remember, was TLC the group of "sportsmen" that tried to put up an illegal 10' fence around their property ?

L & O


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> No offence to you bigT, But as far as TLC is concerned, my opinion is that they will say whatever they think will make them look good.
> 
> I was refering to the new tb test. Allegedly it showed positive and further testing came back negative......So it needs further work. I hope they sent all of the heads in for testing instead of relying on the new instant test.



Wrong...again. Go back and read my other post. No offense taken.


----------



## Bulletproof (Jul 26, 2005)

Bait plots and AR's in the heart of TB country. Really?


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

Bulletproof said:


> Bait plots and AR's in the heart of TB country. Really?


Well,, ya gotta understand BP,,,, that's all done for the health of the herd. :evil:


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

William H Bonney said:


> Well,, ya gotta understand BP,,,, that's all done for the health of the herd. :evil:


1 deer in nearly 300 checked with an average age of 4.5.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> 1 deer in nearly 300 checked with an average age of 4.5.


One deer that was potentially feeding in their food plots and passing the disease to other deer or visiting farms in the area and infecting cattle feed, threatening the dairy industry. If the goal is to stop the spread of bTB, why take the risk of concentrating deer unnaturally?  

(I posted this again, just in case you missed it the first time. )


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> Wrong...again. Go back and read my other post. No offense taken.


 OK, I think I got it now, The test indicated suspect..... Is the test when it is through with its development and goes into regular use, Supposed to detect suspect deer or is it suposed to indicate positives and negatives?

I was under the impression it was supposed to indicate positive/negative and eliminate the need for the head collection/testing.

Liver&onions
This N.Y. times article explains what went on with the fence.
http://www.nytimes.com/1999/02/28/us/fenced-in-deer-stir-dispute-over-bovine-tb.html?src=pm

And this will give you a taste of their methods
http://www.outdoorlife.com/articles/eric-sharp/2007/09/ah-deer-camp


----------



## hunting man (Mar 2, 2005)

Liver and Onions said:


> I am trying to remember, was TLC the group of "sportsmen" that tried to put up an illegal 10' fence around their property ?
> 
> L & O


 Yes the very same club. They were allowed to leave a 4ft tall section ever 100 yards or what ever became of the fight with the DNR. The DNR let them fence it in. This cut out all the surrounding clubs concessions where they had leased the edges of TLC for hunting purposes.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> OK, I think I got it now, The test indicated suspect..... Is the test when it is through with its development and goes into regular use, Supposed to detect suspect deer or is it suposed to indicate positives and negatives?
> 
> I was under the impression it was supposed to indicate positive/negative and eliminate the need for the head collection/testing.
> 
> ...


The necropsy process involves putting the deer on it's back in a cradle. The inside of the chest (lung area) is observed BEFORE the head is removed. If there are lesions visible that are suspected to be btb then blood is collected and the deer is immediately bagged to send to Rose Lake. If the chest area is clean then the head is removed and the lymph glands are dissected to confirm that the deer is btb free.
If a deer is found to be suspect the entire process stops, every surface area that the deer may have come in contact with is disinfected, and all parties involved scrub their hands down with disinfectant before resuming the necropsy.

As far as the articles you posted it appears TLC did everything within their legal rights and those that lost their leases or trespassed with easy got their noses bent out of shape...probably some of them are the same ones illegally baiting still.
As far as the members of TLC go and their legal, and preferred, method of hunting is concerned...who cares?
They STOPPED baiting when it was outlawed, not so for some folks outside of TLC. If you believe that TLC was the only club that used large trucks to transport their bait then I could introduce you to a few poor beet farmers from the Ithaca area that always found a use at their camps for truck loads of beets that were rejected by Pioneer sugar at the beet dump...and probably still do.

Big T


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

hunting man said:


> Yes the very same club. They were allowed to leave a 4ft tall section ever 100 yards or what ever became of the fight with the DNR. The DNR let them fence it in. This cut out all the surrounding clubs concessions where they had leased the edges of TLC for hunting purposes.



Correction! The DNR made sure they followed the law that was in place at the time, and still is. They didn't "let them" fence it in. 
Would a cattle farmer have to get the permission of the DNR to put up a 48" fence on their farm? Do folks in subdivisions have to get permission from the DNR to put up a 48" cyclone fence for their kids and dogs? The laws are in place and TLC followed them while the AG tried to change the rules in the middle of the game.
TLC exercised their private property rights by ending the leases with the surrounding camps for a number of reasons not the least of which was to control trespassing, which the locals at the Do Drop Inn readily admit to doing...in the past.


Big T


----------



## Sportsman1933 (Nov 26, 2007)

hunting man said:


> Yes the very same club. They were allowed to leave a 4ft tall section ever 100 yards or what ever became of the fight with the DNR. The DNR let them fence it in. This cut out all the surrounding clubs concessions where they had leased the edges of TLC for hunting purposes.


So 19 guys had 27,000 acres to hunt and they were so worried about a trespasser that they tried to go against the law and build a fence around the whole thing? Sounds about right, some guys think they can do whatever they want if they have enough money.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> One deer that was potentially feeding in their food plots and passing the disease to other deer or visiting farms in the area and infecting cattle feed, threatening the dairy industry. If the goal is to stop the spread of bTB, why take the risk of concentrating deer unnaturally?
> 
> (I posted this again, just in case you missed it the first time. )


Or (1) deer that was wintering on TLC from a surrounding area that frequented the numerous illegal bait stations and may have been passing on the disease to the resident deer or visiting farms in the area and infecting cattle feed, threatening the dairy industry.
With the goal of stopping the spread of the disease TLC has put their money where their mouth is and has kept the deer they're entrusted with spread out over the landscape.

(in case you missed it the several other times it has been posted on these forums)

Big T


----------



## Sportsman1933 (Nov 26, 2007)

QDMAMAN said:


> Or (1) deer that was wintering on TLC from a surrounding area that frequented the numerous illegal bait stations and may have been passing on the disease to the resident deer or visiting farms in the area and infecting cattle feed, threatening the dairy industry.
> With the goal of stopping the spread of the disease TLC has put their money where their mouth is and has kept the deer they're entrusted with spread out over the landscape.
> 
> (in case you missed it the several other times it has been posted on these forums)
> ...


Maybe it was wintering on TLC property, or maybe it was pushed by the guys honking the horns? haha, is this for real? 

Outdoor life article linked by swampbuck...

"Even the rich guys get in on deer camp in the UP. The Turtle Lake Club in the northern Lower Peninsula is a 27,000-acre facility whose 19 members include some of the leading lights of the auto industry. Members hunt from elaborate blinds for deer that used to be fed like cattle at long troughs. The club brought in tractor-trailer loads of beets, corn and other goodies as feed and bait until the
Department of Natural Resources banned the practice because of an outbreak of bovine tuberculosis. Hunters at Turtle Lake are taken to their blinds in horse-drawn wagons. The deer are driven to the hunters by locals who walk through the woods squeezing rubber bulbs on horns like those used in antique cars."


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Sportsman1933 said:


> So 19 guys had 27,000 acres to hunt and they were so worried about a trespasser that they tried to go against the law and build a fence around the whole thing? Sounds about right, some guys think they can do whatever they want if they have enough money.


So. You condone trespassing? Thanks for the clarification.
Again, and I'll type slower so you can understand it, they did not break any laws by erecting a fence on THEIR PROPERTY.
TLC kills +-300 deer/year do you honestly believe that's being accomplished by 19 hunters? Sounds more like class envy to me. Just sayin.

Big T


----------



## Sportsman1933 (Nov 26, 2007)

QDMAMAN said:


> So. You condone trespassing? Thanks for the clarification.
> Again, and I'll type slower so you can understand it, they did not break any laws by erecting a fence on THEIR PROPERTY.
> TLC kills +-300 deer/year do you honestly believe that's being accomplished by 19 hunters? Sounds more like class envy to me. Just sayin.
> 
> Big T


No i hate trespassers. Drives me nuts. Class envy? If i was a rich guy I wouldnt be taken to my blind on a horse drawn carriage, not my sort of thing personally. I'd probably have a sweet 4 wheeler though. haha I am jealous that have 27,000 acres to hunt, thatd be awesome!


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

QDMAMAN said:


> 1 deer in nearly 300 checked with an average age of 4.5.


was this statistic relative to the one deer in captivity that instigated the baiting plan?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Sportsman1933 said:


> Maybe it was wintering on TLC property, or maybe it was pushed by the guys honking the horns? haha, is this for real?


Nothing illegal about about what they were doing. Are you suggesting that because YOU don't hunt that way it's wrong or that they aren't "as good as you"?


Big T


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> Or (1) deer that was wintering on TLC from a surrounding area that frequented the numerous illegal bait stations and may have been passing on the disease to the resident deer or visiting farms in the area and infecting cattle feed, threatening the dairy industry.
> With the goal of stopping the spread of the disease TLC has put their money where their mouth is and has kept the deer they're entrusted with spread out over the landscape.


The deer they are entrusted with? I think you mean the deer that they attract and concentrate with their food plots and timbering efforts.  

So essentially you are saying that because illegal bait is still being used in the TB zone, that the methods that TLC employs that concentrate deer in a similar manner are a good idea?  That's a stretch.

TLC has already acknowledged that certain types of food plots can concentrate deer and potentially increase the spread of disease, which is why they stopped planting root crops and switched to planting cereal grains and clover instead. But that presumes that by switching to a different crop that there is a reduction in risk. Long standing research has documented the potential for bTB to exist in grass and pastures for up to 7 weeks (Williams & Hoy) as well as soil, water and hay for extended periods (Fine et. al.) and there is plenty of photographic evidence documenting the concentrating effect of deer utilizing cereal grain plots. So given those facts, you still have to ask the question, why take the risk of increasing the transmission of bTB by employing certain management practices, if the goal is to reduce the spread of the disease? 


















Deer grazing in clover & rye plot


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

hunt-n-fool said:


> was this statistic relative to the one deer in captivity that instigated the baiting plan?


fool,
The answer is no. The ban was instigated by the discovery of btb.

Big T


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

BigT, While I do enjoy a healthy debate. My questions regarding the new instant TB test were serious. There is not a lot of info out there about it, And I thought you may have picked up some info on how its development is progressing. That subject has nothing to do with TLC and I dont much care about their studys, Regarding whether the heads were checked was in relation to if they were checking the accuracy of the test kit..... I hope the test kit becomes a reliable tool for states infected with bTB.

If there was in fact 1 tb positive this year that is great, But remember that can happen with random harvest's. Longterm average's are the only real measure of prevalance. Also it should be remembered that TB has an incubation period in which symptoms may not be apparent.


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

QDMAMAN said:


> fool,
> The answer is no. The ban was instigated by the discovery of btb.
> 
> Big T


Thanks for the answer, strikingly similiar circumstances isnt there (1 deer out of many) ?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Sportsman1933 said:


> No i hate trespassers. Drives me nuts. Class envy? If i was a rich guy I wouldnt be taken to my blind on a horse drawn carriage, not my sort of thing personally. I'd probably have a sweet 4 wheeler though. haha I am jealous that have 27,000 acres to hunt, thatd be awesome!


You just can't make this stuff up.:lol::lol::lol:


----------



## Sportsman1933 (Nov 26, 2007)

QDMAMAN said:


> Nothing illegal about about what they were doing. Are you suggesting that because YOU don't hunt that way it's wrong or that they aren't "as good as you"?
> 
> 
> Big T


No, i just think its hilarious. Horse drawn carriages and honk honking through the woods is legal and fine if thats what you want to do. Its amazing how different deer camps are, i thought thats what the article was about? Though I do think the article puts them in a bad light. Boy, you sure are defensive about this club.


----------



## Sportsman1933 (Nov 26, 2007)

QDMAMAN said:


> You just can't make this stuff up.:lol::lol::lol:


I KNOW, its great isnt it! The stuff you learn on the interwebs! honk honk!


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

I hear BigT is lobbying to be the new Carriage Master at TLC next year!


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> BigT, While I do enjoy a healthy debate. My questions regarding the new instant TB test were serious. There is not a lot of info out there about it, And I thought you may have picked up some info on how its development is progressing. That subject has nothing to do with TLC and I dont much care about their studys. I hope the test kit becomes a reliable tool for states infected with bTB.


For clarification, Steve Schmitt saw no reason why he and his assistant couldn't perform the same exact btb test on the heads, that they do at Rose Lake, at TLC.
There was ample space and time to do so so they did.
There was also a plan in place if a suspect deer was discovered. That plan came in to play with the (1) deer on that particular Saturday.
That (1) deer was later discovered to be negative for btb.

Big T


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

QDMAMAN said:


> You just can't make this stuff up.:lol::lol::lol:


As my daughter would say, *"I know, right."*

I find it quite amusing how some people wil literally contort themselves around the fact the the very things that they are doing in the name of QDM may very well be as dangerous to the resource as the dreaded "pile of produce."

Nope, you *"just can't make this stuff up."*


KPC


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Sportsman1933 said:


> Though I do think the article puts them in a bad light. Boy, you sure are defensive about this club.


Defensive vs. judgmental? I'll take that as a compliment.
I defend the things I know, not judge the things I don't.
I suspect that the author of the article has the same disgusting class envy character issues.

Big T


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> I hear BigT is lobbying to be the new Carriage Master at TLC next year!


True to form...the subtle digs begin when the argument is lost.


----------



## Sportsman1933 (Nov 26, 2007)

QDMAMAN said:


> Defensive vs. judgmental? I'll take that as a compliment.
> I defend the things I know, not judge the things I don't.
> I suspect that the author of the article has the same disgusting class envy character issues.
> 
> Big T


Thanks for you insight into my personal traits and character issues based on a couple internet posts of mine, have a good Sunday!


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

KPC said:


> I find it quite amusing how some people wil literally contort themselves around the fact the the very things that they are doing in the name of QDM may very well be as dangerous to the resource as the dreaded "pile of produce."KPC


I know right?:lol:
Again...1 deer in nearly 300.
Tell me? Does that resonate with you?

Big T


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> True to form...the subtle digs begin when the argument is lost.


It was a joke, Tony, no dig intended. As far as the argument being lost, why don't you respond to post #319? I'd say the argument is lost when one side retires from the field.......Just sayin.


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

or post 322...........

and I am not the FOOL


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

_"I find it quite amusing how some people wil literally contort themselves around the fact the the very things that they are doing .........."_


I find it infinitely amusing that some posters will literally contort any post that offers a mildly skeptical view of the &#8216;_dump&shoot&#8217;_ -style of deer killing to offer portfolios of pics & reams of chatter in attempts to shield this chumming practice from a critical eye &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;regardless of how many trained biologists &#8211;academic & professional &#8211; condemn the practice of bait-dumps as harmful to our deer herd. 
Amusing in the sense, that after all, these posters have a keyboard therefore they are as informed & insightful as the scientific community.

I also find it quite amusing how some people will literally contort themselves to criticize habitat improvements or food plotting &#8230;&#8230;..but turn a conveniently blind eye toward the violations of our game laws and scofflaw baiting. And, yet some profess to be &#8216;sportsmen&#8217; and supporters of deer. It seems to me to be hypocrisy squared. But that&#8217;s just me.

May we suggest to some of the above posters that if you sincerely believe food plotting ----the one bite type or a whole gnawful ----a serious threat; or, if you find habitat improvements such as cutting trees or planting crabapples or sowing switchgrass ----a serious threat, well then, quite typing in a chatroom and get on the phone to your Representative, your Senator, the NRC&#8230;&#8230;heck, even your school principal, and work to get food plotting & tree planting outlawed. That is how our democratic representational political system works.

Sic &#8216;em.


(whew!!.........almost forgot the secret fraternity signal, the winkin' blinkin' emoticon....


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> For clarification, Steve Schmitt saw no reason why he and his assistant couldn't perform the same exact btb test on the heads, that they do at Rose Lake, at TLC.
> There was ample space and time to do so so they did.
> There was also a plan in place if a suspect deer was discovered. That plan came in to play with the (1) deer on that particular Saturday.
> That (1) deer was later discovered to be negative for btb.
> ...


 You should be a politician.:lol:........So I take it that any progress being made on the new instant TB test kit was not discussed. (I seen a picture of it somewhere but cant find it, But its a little plastic gadget, looks kind of like a pregnancy test kit.) Thats all I was asking about


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> So essentially you are saying that because illegal bait is still being used in the TB zone, that the methods that TLC employs that concentrate deer in a similar manner are a good idea?  That's a stretch.


Although this has already been addressed I'll answer it again.
TLC is spreading the deer out on their property by planting many legal food plots in a wide geographic area. They are also doing TSI during winter months in several geographic areas on their property to keep the deer from yarding (congregating).
The results seem to have some merit ie: 1 positive btb deer in nearly 300 deer checked with an average age of 4.5.
One has to ask why the results that TLC is getting aren't considered to be noteworthy even with the widespread illegal baiting that is taking place just outside of their borders.

Big T

regarding your previous joke...I apologize for not laughing then so I'll do it now.:lol:


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

swampbuck said:


> You should be a politician.:lol:........So I take it that any progress being made on the new instant TB test kit was not discussed. (I seen a picture of it somewhere but cant find it, But its a little plastic gadget, looks kind of like a pregnancy test kit.) Thats all I was asking about


Alright! Gotcha!
The "instant test" is still being developed. It was in fact discussed.

Big T...FOR PRESIDENT!


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> Alright! Gotcha!
> The "instant test" is still being developed. It was in fact discussed.
> 
> Big T...FOR PRESIDENT!


 Wow that was almost like work :lol:, Thanks, I hope its available soon.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> Although this has already been addressed I'll answer it again.
> TLC is spreading the deer out on their property by planting many legal food plots in a wide geographic area. They are also doing TSI during winter months in several geographic areas on their property to keep the deer from yarding (congregating).
> The results seem to have some merit ie: 1 positive btb deer in nearly 300 deer checked with an average age of 4.5.
> One has to ask why the results that TLC is getting aren't considered to be noteworthy even with the widespread illegal baiting that is taking place just outside of their borders.


59 of those 300 deer came from neighboring properties and they had a prevalence rate of zero, so using your logic, what are the neighboring properties doing that TLC isn't? Based on the 2009 prevalence rate for the TB zone, TLC could have anticipated 1.5 out of those 260 deer testing positive. The actual result was 1. Prevalence rates are directly tied to the overall population and since we don't know what the estimated population for the TB zone is for 2010, we don't know what the anticipated prevalence rate for TLC would be and whether TLC is higher or lower then properties in the rest of the TB zone. 

So the claim that concentrating deer during the winter by planting food plots and cutting timber instead of allowing them to concentrate by yarding, having any substantive reductive impact on prevalence rates is, as far as I can tell, unsubstantiated. 

Herd density seems to be the factor that has the greatest impact on prevalence rates. In recent years, the DNR has allowed the density to increase in the TB zone, which has resulted in a corresponding increase in prevalence rates. If keeping density low is the most effective means of lowering prevalence rates, then why would you want to provide increased amounts of overwinter supplemental feed, in the form of food plots and timbering that provides browse? It seems counter-productive to the goal of lowering densities. It also makes no sense to protect yearling bucks and manage for an older age structure, since yearling bucks have the highest potential for spreading the disease through dispersal and older bucks have the next highest potential for speading bTB.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

fairfax1 said:


> And, yet some profess to be sportsmen and supporters of deer. It seems to me to be hypocrisy squared. But thats just me.


Kind of like those apple and pear planting "stewards of the resource" that so adamantly oppose the use of bait because it concentrates deer.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

fairfax1 said:


> I find it infinitely amusing that some posters will literally contort any post that offers a mildly skeptical view of the &#8216;_dump&shoot&#8217;_ -style of deer killing...
> 
> I also find it quite amusing how some people will literally contort themselves to criticize habitat improvements or food plotting...
> 
> May we suggest to some of the above posters that if you sincerely believe food plotting ----the one bite type or a whole gnawful ----a serious threat; or, if you find habitat improvements such as cutting trees or planting crabapples or sowing switchgrass ----a serious threat, well then, quite typing in a chatroom and get on the phone to your Representative, your Senator, the NRC&#8230;&#8230;heck, even your school principal, and work to get food plotting & tree planting outlawed.



Here's one more picture for you fairfax...










This illustrates perfectly your last post, a rather poor attempt at "strawman argument."

I would respectfully suggest that you take a class in reading comprehension because I never said most of what you suggest. Never once did I suggest that one is good and one is bad, I only said that if one is bad, they are BOTH bad. The pictures only illustrated the hypocricy of those that somehow think they are different.

Furthermore, I never said I wanted foodplotting and tree planting outlawed. Let me be perfectly clear for the seemingly comprehension impaired.

*I DO BOTH, AND PLAN TO CONTUNUE TO DO BOTH.*

I'm just honest enough to suggest on a public forum that the difference between my apple trees and another guys corn feeder is minimal. The difference between an oak tree and a corn feeder is non-existent. As a matter of fact, the *"multiple bite"* argument could be made that my apple trees are actually MORE dangerous than the other guy's corn feeder. Same with my beets, my carrots, and my turnips if I chose to plant them. Even in a rye or clover field, you seem to suggest that deer somehow stake out their own individual acre and stay there. In reality, if you are at all familiar with deer habits, as Musterlndr's pictures illustrate, you can have a 40, 80, 120, or 640 acre field and groups of deer can still be covered by a tarp as they feed.

Now, as far as your "science" argument goes, are you referring to the same science that suggests that bait piles *"cause"* bTB or CWD, as we heard from Mr. Mason? Or the science that suggests that the CWD prions remain in the soil foever and that food plots could actually create MORE risk than a bait pile? (which we conveniently never read about...lol) Doesn't science rely on actual evidence? Where is the actual evidence that any wild deer has contracted CWD from a bait pile. Can you provide a link the report please. 

Nice try, but your *strawman* isn't very safe around the flame of common sense.



KPC


----------



## boostfan (Feb 7, 2011)

I voted for the least popular option that I am against it because it contributes to the spread of diseases.

IMO an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, why wait for a disease to start spreading before banning baiting. However after thinking about my answer I don't think that is actually what I believe. I have an issue with bait PILES not baiting.

There is a big difference between Deer being around the same tree eating apples and a bait pile. When eating from a bait pile, a deer's nose rubs against food that will be consumed by a different deer. We as humans don't have a fear of getting sick from congragating in a resteraunt to eat, but we don't eat the next guys half eaten chicken and we damn sure have an issue if the waitrress sneezes on our food.

So IMO if the DNR can create rules to make people who want to bait spread that bait out over a sufficent area to reduce the mucus of one deer getting on the food of another deer, I say bait.

I know I sound like an arm chair biologist, but I think it's common sense.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

boostfan said:


> I voted for the least popular option that I am against it because it contributes to the spread of diseases.
> 
> IMO an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, why wait for a disease to start spreading before banning baiting. However after thinking about my answer I don't think that is actually what I believe. I have an issue with bait PILES not baiting.
> 
> ...


Common sense would tell you that what you describe will undoubtly happen at ANY food source, not just bait "piles".


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

boostfan said:


> I voted for the least popular option that I am against it because it contributes to the spread of diseases.
> 
> IMO an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure, why wait for a disease to start spreading before banning baiting. However after thinking about my answer I don't think that is actually what I believe. I have an issue with bait PILES not baiting.
> 
> ...


What you stated does make sense. Much like at a cafeteria food line(food plot), most places have servers wearing gloves and hats to not spread anything. We surely dont let everyone reach in and help themselves (like deer do in a food plot) so I agree with your analogy.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

QDMAMAN said:


> Correction! The DNR made sure they followed the law that was in place at the time, and still is. They didn't "let them" fence it in.
> Would a cattle farmer have to get the permission of the DNR to put up a 48" fence on their farm? Do folks in subdivisions have to get permission from the DNR to put up a 48" cyclone fence for their kids and dogs? The laws are in place and TLC followed them while the AG tried to change the rules in the middle of the game.
> TLC exercised their private property rights by ending the leases with the surrounding camps for a number of reasons not the least of which was to control trespassing, which the locals at the Do Drop Inn readily admit to doing...in the past.
> 
> ...


According to the state's lawsuit, most of the club's fence is 8 feet, while some stretches are only 4 to 6 feet. So the club has maintained that its fence is not a deer fence.



> *State officials strongly disagree*, and have retained Scott R. Winterstein, an associate* professor of wildlife at Michigan State University* who has studied the deer here using radio collars. Professor Winterstein said that few deer would try to jump the eight-foot fence, while does with fawns would not even try the four-foot fences. The club's fences are a serious problem because they are likely to increase the prevalence of tuberculosis within the club while still letting occasional infected animals escape, he added.
> 
> Many deer tracks were visible this afternoon in the snow along both sides of a two-mile stretch of eight-foot fence, but none of the deer appeared to have jumped the fence. ''They'll come right up to the fence but not over the fence,'' said Elaine Carlson, a *state biologist*, as she studied the snow.


For someone that likes to use biologists statements in their defense, I'm kind of surprised you aren't jumping all over TLC for going against the above listed professionals opinions. :16suspect


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I guess game ranch guru Dr. Deer feels right at home there.


----------



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

QDMAMAN said:


> Are you suggesting that because YOU don't hunt that way it's wrong or that they aren't "as good as you"?


HAHAHA! WRONG AGAIN! This stuff is too funny. 

A QDM'er asking this question!!!!!!!!!


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

*KPC* &#8230;.please help us out here, will ya?

You have informed us in the past of your 20-acre piece of hunting heaven in _'northern lower Michigan'_. 
That experience resonates on these forums; so many of us here have versions of that same dream.

And we also read your vigorous insight on the merits or de-merits of baiting vs. food plotting. And we are OK with all of that, too.

But, you give us pause when you rather emphatically post this up in # 342: 
*"I do both and will continue to do both"* (plotting and baiting).
&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..

You can see where I&#8217;m going with this.

How does that work on your 20-acres near Cadillac? The one surrounded by federal land? The one you wanted to recently timber for habitat improvement? That one?

How does continuing to bait in the northern lower peninsula fit with our sense of being a Michigan sportsmen? -- one who respects the letter & intent of our game protection laws?

Don't mean to put you on the spot, KP, but can you help us out here?

fx



(you know I'm sincere when I use the frat-boy secret handshake emoticon:  )


----------



## Wayne Sitton (Sep 15, 2009)

Dear Michigan Sportsmen Forum Posters,
For the supporters thank you for the continued support and we welcome your continued involvement in our research and sharing of scientific data. Unfortunately, TLC is a big target, always has been, always will be just a fact of life and if you hang around us long enough you too will get the leprosy treatment. We share all our data with the state and also MDA both of which are in full support of our management practices both from a scientific standpoint and from data "proof" validation. For the curious and the uninformed here are a few facts for your enjoyment.
1-The rapid test development takes time to perfect, it's not there yet. It will test positive for a positive animal almost 100% of the time. Unfortunately, they still get a lot of "false" positives like the one we saw a few weeks ago. We will continue to cooperate with them in an effort to eventually get a test that will help the ag community much more than the sportsmen.
2-There is a vaccine for bTB that has been submitted to the USDA for approval for a test. The down side is if a vaccine is administered to an animal, without the rapid test being perfected, then there is no way to know if the animal is a carrier or one that has been vaccinated. So the test is very important.
3-We conducted a 2 year "fence study" and have twice as many deer leaving as come in. Mostly males. The fence had nothing to do with the termination of the "leased property" and most of the neighbors are pretty happy with what they are harvesting. Room is an issue for some of them but they are working around it and I will continue to work with them in any way I can.
4-The horse drawn carriage picture was hilarious, thank you for that. They are actually the original wagons, no spring in the seats, no heaters, no fancy drivers just old fashioned buck boards. Not comfortable nor efficient for moving people.
5-Honking horns, yea we do that, any of you guys ever participate in a deer drive? Not very effective but like #4 a long standing tradition. Forgot to mention 90% of the deer harvested are out of one of the 25 or so blinds we have. Not exactly top of the line but will keep most of the wind and snow off the hunters.
6-Dr. Kroll is not a biologist, I really like this one, he is THE biologist in the deer industry. He happens to have a Doctorates degree in wildlife biology along with a couple more. At Muy Grande which keeps coming up, the peoples deer gave that ag investment bTB, not the other way around and is well documented. As far as Kroll feeling "right at home" here, I would say that is a correct assumption. He enjoys being around sportsmen who are are doing the right things for our natural resources.
7-The bait pile debate continues, never happened other than a very minimal amount by private membership. But it makes a great story even if it's untrue.
8-Can a deer jump an 8ft fence, not unless he has a rocket in his butt. Illegal fence, not hardly but I can show you several in the area that are.
I am sure we will see this stripped down, dissected and debated but for you guys here is a suggestion. Why don't we ask the mods to go where it say's Deer Management, Habitat Management and start a permanent bash TL heading and you can start threads off that, I promise I will stay off that one. Until then we will continue to do research and share data with the folks that use it for good. After all this is still a free country and slander is still illegal so please, facts only here on out......


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

swampbuck said:


> OK, I think I got it now, The test indicated suspect..... Is the test when it is through with its development and goes into regular use, Supposed to detect suspect deer or is it suposed to indicate positives and negatives?
> 
> I was under the impression it was supposed to indicate positive/negative and eliminate the need for the head collection/testing.
> 
> ...


This is from post # 308. Swampbuck was answering my question about TLC and illegal fences. Thanks for the articles about TLC. Interesting that this group has gone from semi-truck loads of legal bait, to putting up illegal fences to helping the DNR with the TB study.
It has probably been mentioned a few times and I missed it....why don't they do the doe(antlerless) harvest in the Dec. late antlerless hunt instead of in February ? Fetus study perhaps ?

L & O


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Wayne S.

Is the information in those articles from the new york times and outdoor life true or false ?

Why do you think your club so unpopular with a large portion of people in that area?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Michihunter said:


> According to the state's lawsuit, most of the club's fence is 8 feet, while some stretches are only 4 to 6 feet. So the club has maintained that its fence is not a deer fence.
> 
> 
> 
> For someone that likes to use biologists statements in their defense, I'm kind of surprised you aren't jumping all over TLC for going against the above listed professionals opinions. :16suspect


The fence is not illegal.
I've never met Ms. Carlson so all I know about her is hear say.
As far as deer tracks on both sides of the fence go...it seems reasonable that deer would be on both sides of the fence in good deer habitat. The fact that they weren't jumping it means nothing unless you know the circumstances. I'm am impressed though by Ms. Carlson's ability to study snow.
Ted, why don't you contact Ms. Carlson and ask her why she didn't take advantage of the necropsy at TLC in order to better familiarize herself with btb in the region that she represents.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

QDMAMAN said:


> The fence is not illegal.
> I've never met Ms. Carlson so all I know about her is hear say.
> As far as deer tracks on both sides of the fence go...it seems reasonable that deer would be on both sides of the fence in good deer habitat. The fact that they weren't jumping it means nothing unless you know the circumstances. I'm am impressed though by Ms. Carlson's ability to study snow.
> Ted, why don't you contact Ms. Carlson and ask her why she didn't take advantage of the necropsy at TLC in order to better familiarize herself with btb in the region that she represents.


There were two professionals listed there Tony. And neither seemed to be overly impressed with the fence situation. I'm just relating the news as its reported and questioned your lack of defense regarding these two biologists and their opinions. If you feel Ms Carlson is derelict in her duties, perhaps you should be the one contacting her.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

QDMAMAN said:


> why don't you contact Ms. Carlson and ask her why she didn't take advantage of the necropsy at TLC in order to better familiarize herself with btb in the region that she represents.


Um....Elaine Carlson retired several months ago, she is no longer with the DNR.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Munsterlndr said:


> Um....Elaine Carlson retired several months ago, she is no longer with the DNR.


That might just leave a mark on someone that only defends what they know, huh?:lol::lol:


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

fairfax1 said:


> *KPC* &#8230;.please help us out here, will ya?
> 
> &#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..
> 
> ...


No problem fairfax, I'll be glad to help you out. I don't mind at all.

And yes, I can see *EXACTLY* where you're going with this. 

Rather than just respond to the items in my post. you'd rather make it look like you are going to catch me in some kind of lie or at least being inconsistent. Apparently, you think it might be more effective to divert attention in that way. That's OK, I'll play.

First, as you know, I do own a small piece of hunting property near Cadillac. When I purchased it almost 15 years ago, it had a number of producing apple trees on it. Unfortunately, they are all early producers (Transparents) so they have all dropped and been eaten prior to hunting season. About 9 or 10 years ago, I planted 10 more, all later maturing varieties. These were planted for one reason and one reason only. To attract deer so I could have a chance at killing some. I have experimented with smaller food plots both on my own land, (without much success by the way, as the soil is poor on much of my property and where it is viable, the tree canopy is too great. This is precisely why I am in the process of setting up a logging operation, so I can do even MORE habitat improvement, so I can attract deer for the purpose of having a chance at killing some. Does this sound to you like someone who has a desire to make food-plotting illegal? This year I'm planning to experiment with some crab-apple trees. 

You see fairfax, not all of us are blessed to live or hunt in an area where prime agricultural land is the norm so we are limited to what we can plant and what we can do. But, we do what we can...within the law, to make our hunting experience as good as it can be. If that happens to be a couple dozen fruit trees in in a section of swamp, so be it. 

Add to this the fact there are other properties that I hunt with friends, some with rye and clover fields that have been planted for guess what...to attract deer so we have a chance at killing some.

Can you see where I'm going with this?

Let me recap. First you try to make me look bad by suggesting that I am pushing to make food-plotting illegal. Then you post proof, in my own words, where I am looking to do more habitat improvement...including food-plotting on my own land. How rediculous is that? You can't be serious. 

Now, if you wouldn't mind, how about stopping already with the strawmen argements and the diversions.

Call it anything you want but make no mistake about it. We are all seeking to do the same thing...create a situation where we can manipulate a public resourse to meet our own liking. If that means attracting them from one area to another, so be it. If it means providing refuge so they can live long enough to please us, so be it. If it means providing enough nutrition to make them "healthier" (read larger antlers), it still boils down to the same thing. If it means planting fruit trees that drop fruit or just dropping the fruit, it means the same thing. If it means planting corn for deer to eat or spreading it with a feeder, it means the same thing. If a deer pulls up a beet or a turnip and eats it, or a hunter puts out a beet, or a turnip, or a carrot for the deer to eat, it means the same thing. (and presents the same danger by the way)

The only difference is that some people simply can't bring themselves to admit it. They have to be more noble, more ethical, more scientific, or more whatever it is that they need to be.

Now, can you see where I'm going with this?

 <<<<< frat boy habitat improvement handshake.

KPC


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

I went searching on the dnr website for the fence donument Michi referenced, Didnt find it. Do you have a link Michi ?

What I did find rather surprising was the MDNR grant reports for 2009 and 2010. I found it surprising that Turtle Lake Club recieved Landowner Incentive Grants for $11,250 in 2009 and $20,025 in 2010. I was under the impression that they were a wealthy club. Is there another Turtle Lake Club in Michigan

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/GrantReportLetter_262508_7.pdf

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/Grant_Report_Letter_305961_7.pdf

And $12,240 in 2007........I think I give up on the Court documents


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

swampbuck said:


> I went searching on the dnr website for the fence donument Michi referenced, Didnt find it. Do you have a link Michi ?
> 
> What I did find rather surprising was the MDNR grant reports for 2009 and 2010. I found it surprising that Turtle Lake Club recieved Landowner Incentive Grants for $11,250 in 2009 and $20,025 in 2010. I was under the impression that they were a wealthy club.
> 
> ...


Check pg 3 of the NY times article you posted.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Munsterlndr said:


> Um....Elaine Carlson retired several months ago, she is no longer with the DNR.


Ok...represented. There were 5 before her retirement.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Michihunter said:


> There were two professionals listed there Tony. And neither seemed to be overly impressed with the fence situation. I'm just relating the news as its reported and questioned your lack of defense regarding these two biologists and their opinions. If you feel Ms Carlson is derelict in her duties, perhaps you should be the one contacting her.


Their "opinion" doesn't supersede the law.
I never suggested she was "derelict in her duty". Just wondered why a MDNR biologist in the btb zone wouldn't be interested in the necropsy. Maybe she had prior plans on those weekends.
Are you bothered at all by the fact that the locals around Hillman readily admit to trespassing (breaking the law) on TLC or do you prefer to comment on the folks that are abiding by the law? One would wonder why you would disregard that portion of the article that you've chosen to reference so readily.:16suspect

Big T


----------



## Joedirt (Dec 3, 2010)

swampbuck said:


> Wayne S.
> 
> Is the information in those articles from the new york times and outdoor life true or false ?
> 
> Why do you think your club so unpopular with a large portion of people in that area?


Swampbuck, have you hunted or know someone that has hunted a neighboring property?

I used to, as a matter of fact back when the first case of TB was found on TLC. True there where no fences but to say they never participated in baiting except a few private individuals total BS. When you have a dozen very rich members who do you think baited for them caretakers maybe? I'll admit I may have gotten lost tracking a deer or 2. We were given strick advise not to go on their side of the road but I wasn't gonna let a deer go to waste with out trying to get it. Rumors were you would get arrested but I didn't care back then. I've seen bait piles that would blow your mind "truck loads" and they had the deer to eat it. I remember on my first hunt there I had at least 50 deer migrating through a rye field towards TLC at dusk, it seemed like they were never going to stop coming thru. Back then the DNR issued unlimited antlerless tags but none of the club members would shoot a doe, strictly antlers only. We just happened to know someone  which gave us a free for all after the normal firearm season was over. I'm not mentioning any names since I was never a member of the club, but we sure took our share of deer :evil: 

IMO 4' or 8' fence TLC is still trying to accomplish the same selfish result over free range animals.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

QDMAMAN said:


> Their "opinion" doesn't supersede the law.
> I never suggested she was "derelict in her duty". Just wondered why a MDNR biologist in the btb zone wouldn't be interested in the necropsy. Maybe she had prior plans on those weekends.
> Are you bothered at all by the fact that the locals around Hillman readily admit to trespassing (breaking the law) on TLC or do you prefer to comment on the folks that are abiding by the law? One would wonder why you would disregard that portion of the article that you've chosen to reference so readily.:16suspect
> 
> Big T


 Much like you ignoring the opinion of *Dr*. Winterstein and Biologist Elaine Carlson, I merely disregarded the opinions and statements of non professionals. Sorry if fencing in a deer herd doesn't bother you regardless of how 'legal' it may seem. The fact is a highly regarded biologist or two voiced concerns that you apparently don't agree with. Nuff said.


Am I bothered by trespassers on TLC land? About as much as I'm bothered by trespassers on any other land that isn't mine. I don't agreee with it but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it. I will however state that I HIGHLY doubt that trespassing was the sole motivating force in constructing that fence.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Joedirt said:


> I'll admit I may have gotten lost tracking a deer or 2. We were given strick advise not to go on their side of the road but I wasn't gonna let a deer go to waste with out trying to get it. Rumors were you would get arrested but I didn't care back then.
> 
> IMO 4' or 8' fence TLC is still trying to accomplish the same selfish result over free range animals.


Unfortunately when someone admits to trespassing on numerous occasions because they didn't care...their "opinion" isn't given much consideration.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Michihunter said:


> Much like you ignoring the opinion of *Dr*. Winterstein and Biologist Elaine Carlson, I merely disregarded the opinions and statements of non professionals. Sorry if fencing in a deer herd doesn't bother you regardless of how 'legal' it may seem. The fact is a highly regarded biologist or two voiced concerns that you apparently don't agree with. Nuff said.
> 
> 
> Am I bothered by trespassers on TLC land? About as much as I'm bothered by trespassers on any other land that isn't mine. I don't agreee with it but I'm certainly not going to lose any sleep over it. I will however state that I HIGHLY doubt that trespassing was the sole motivating force in constructing that fence.


Those articles are quite old and may be out of date.
Bears seem to be able to come and go on the TLC property, if they can get in and out the deer can as well. Also Pete Squib (retired DNR) has stated the fences are legal and do not prohibit deer from moving in and out of the property.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Tom Morang said:


> Those articles are quite old and may be out of date.
> Bears seem to be able to come and go on the TLC property, if they can get in and out the deer can as well. Also Pete Squib (retired DNR) has stated the fences are legal and do not prohibit deer from moving in and out of the property.


No doubt they're old but still relevant to the issue. Mr Sitton himself has said it would take a rocket booster to propel a deer over an 8 foot fence. Now when the majority of the property sports that 8' fence with only small areas interspersed with 4' fences(and I do mean small) there's no doubt deer will come and go....................sporadically. But that too can be changed through 'legal' habitat manipulations if an owner so desires.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Michihunter said:


> No doubt they're old but still relevant to the issue. Mr Sitton himself has said it would take a rocket booster to propel a deer over an 8 foot fence. Now when the majority of the property sports that 8' fence with only small areas interspersed with 4' fences(and I do mean small) there's no doubt deer will come and go....................sporadically. But that too can be changed through 'legal' habitat manipulations if an owner so desires.


Have you personally seen the fence? Can you state how small the four foot sections are, how many there are and how they are spaced?


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Michihunter said:


> Much like you ignoring the opinion of *Dr*. Winterstein and Biologist Elaine Carlson, I merely disregarded the opinions and statements of non professionals. Sorry if fencing in a deer herd doesn't bother you regardless of how 'legal' it may seem. The fact is a highly regarded biologist or two voiced concerns that you apparently don't agree with. Nuff said.


I didn't ignore their opinions Ted, I just don't agree with them.
If TLC was constructing the fence within the rules of the law their "opinion" was just that, their opinion.
At one time in my life I was considering raising deer. While pursuing that dream I came to realize that although CO's are responsible for monitoring cervid enclosures very few of them had any grasp on what was kosher and what wasn't when it came to fences. 
A close friend that use to raise deer spent way to much of his time informing his local CO that his fences where legal only to have the CO confirm later that he was correct.
So for me to consider whether or not the 2 professionals you referenced were informed or not, resonated with me and I can understand why a biologist might not be familiar with the law regarding fence heights.
Do you, or any of the TLC haters, wonder why the local CO and Dr. Schmitt take an active role in the TLC winter health check? Do you believe that the MDNR would encourage them to participate if TLC was a bunch of law breakers?


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Tom Morang said:


> Have you personally seen the fence? Can you state how small the four foot sections are, how many there are and how they are spaced?


To be perfectly honest? No, I haven't seen it with my own two eyes. But I certainly know of it and know people that have seen it firsthand. Perhaps Mr Sitton can chime in and give us the exact dimensions to keep anyone from perverting the truth.


----------



## Tom Morang (Aug 14, 2001)

Michihunter said:


> To be perfectly honest? No, I haven't seen it with my own two eyes. But I certainly know of it and know people that have seen it firsthand. Perhaps Mr Sitton can chime in and give us the exact dimensions to keep anyone from perverting the truth.




Perverting the truth? LOL 

On this site? LOL


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

Tom Morang said:


> Perverting the truth? LOL
> 
> On this site? LOL


Touche' Tom! Touche'!!:lol: However, it's almost as sad as it is funny.



QDMAMAN said:


> Do you, or any of the TLC haters, wonder why the local CO and Dr. Schmitt take an active role in the TLC winter health check? Do you believe that the MDNR would encourage them to participate if TLC was a bunch of law breakers?


You sure are putting a lot of words in my mouth Tony. TLC hater? TLC breaking the law? Funny how you dogged Munster about his jabs and how it was a sign of losing an argument. Wonder if the same can be applied to you?:16suspect


----------



## fairfax1 (Jun 12, 2003)

Poster *KPC*.......

We be cool here. 

This response in your last post works for me:

_&#8220;.....we do what we can...within the law, to make our hunting experience as good as it can be.&#8221;_

KP.....that is so cool. Who here, on _Michigan Sportsman_, cannot agree with that sentiment? 
I certainly can.

My earlier post responding to you was only seeking clarity. My confusion may very well have been due to my own reading comprehension struggles, as you suggested.

In your remarks on baiting & plotting I likely mis-comprehended this apparent confession of a violation of and/or intent to violate our game laws:

*"I DO BOTH, AND PLAN TO CONTUNUE TO DO BOTH"*

Can you comprehend how I got impaired?


Lastly K.....we ain&#8217;t asking that you be noble, ethical, or scientific.
I think most here would be content if you just kept it legal.


----------



## QDMAMAN (Dec 8, 2004)

Michihunter said:


> Touche' Tom! Touche'!!:lol: However, it's almost as sad as it is funny.
> 
> You sure are putting a lot of words in my mouth Tony. TLC hater? TLC breaking the law? Funny how you dogged Munster about his jabs and how it was a sign of losing an argument. Wonder if the same can be applied to you?:16suspect


I didn't call you a TLC hater. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?:16suspect
You're the one that is making the claim that TLC's fence is illegal thus insinuating that they're law breakers.
I'm not dodging anything Ted.


----------



## NoWake (Feb 7, 2006)

When KPC mentioned doing *both* he wasn't talking about bating and foodplots he was talking about plainting fruit trees and food plots. At first I thought the same thing as fairfax1. I had to go back and re-read it.


----------



## Joedirt (Dec 3, 2010)

QDMAMAN said:


> Unfortunately when someone admits to trespassing on numerous occasions because they didn't care...their "opinion" isn't given much consideration.


What would you do when you were in your early 20's? Just let it go.... Yeah right. I'm sorry if I'm not as perfect as you. 

Reguardless how I know this information does that make their style of management acceptable still? 20 ton beet piles, great deer management. What about illegal fences along portions of the property lines? Facts are facts and I could careless what you think of me. I still know people that hunt the area. As far as I'm concerned TLC should bare the majority of fault in TB being spread period.

Aparrently as long as you get your name or QDMA mentioned somewhere along the line you can overlook whats been going on. I've read your post about this club, just alot of butt kissing going on to make yourself feel better.

Kind of like that other "Coop property" that posted pics flat out with bait last year..... What happened there? Just sweep it under the rug


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

QDMAMAN said:


> I didn't call you a TLC hater. Are you trying to put words in my mouth?:16suspect
> You're the one that is making the claim that TLC's fence is illegal thus insinuating that they're law breakers.
> I'm not dodging anything Ted.


Either lay off the kool aid, get a better pair of glasses or take advantage of my tinfoil hat special Tony. Nowhere have I accused TLC of breaking the law with a fence or any other type of action and you did indeed group me with the TLC haters. If you need to go back and peruse this entire thread before making your purchase (or apologies), I'd completely understand.


----------



## KPC (Jan 29, 2000)

fairfax1 said:


> My earlier post responding to you was only seeking clarity. My confusion may very well have been due to my own reading comprehension struggles, as you suggested.
> 
> In your remarks on baiting & plotting I likely mis-comprehended this apparent confession of a violation of and/or intent to violate our game laws:
> 
> ...


Um, actually no. Apparently there really are some comprehension issues fairfax. Those remarks weren't in regard to *"baiting & plotting"* as you are now suggesting.

They were actually in response to your original statement, and I quote...

*"or, if you find habitat improvements such as cutting trees or planting crabapples or sowing switchgrass ----a serious threat, well then, quite typing in a chatroom and get on the phone to your Representative, your Senator, the NRC&#8230;&#8230;heck, even your school principal, and work to get food plotting & tree planting outlawed."*

To which I responded:

*"I DO BOTH, AND PLAN TO CONTUNUE TO DO BOTH"*

Now, being the magnanimous guy that I am, no apology necessary.

Oh, and lastly...

*"we ain&#8217;t asking that you be noble, ethical, or scientific.
I think most here would be content if you just kept it legal." *

I don't know who *"we"* is, but it truly warms my heart to know that you all approve of me.



Be careful now. I'd hate to see you twist an ankle getting down off such a high horse.

 

KPC


----------



## hunt-n-fool (Oct 10, 2006)

A little bandwidth, alittle popcorn, and some beverage to quench the thirst, and this thread is pretty cheap entertainment to say the least :lol:


----------



## swampbuck (Dec 23, 2004)

Joedirt said:


> Swampbuck, have you hunted or know someone that has hunted a neighboring property?


 I have some relatives in 452 and have met some of their friends, No I have never been to TLC or any surrounding propertys. I did do some hunting in 452 during the original doe slaughter. I have read any TLC info I have came across over the years, and saved a lot of it. I have no interest in most of what they do, Other than possible animal husbandry of a public resource, and any possible impact on the tb rate. I hope that they are on the right track,A nd it would be great if they found a solution to the TB problem. But I can not help being pessimistic due to past history. I think that there are a lot of people who feel that way.




QDMAMAN said:


> Do you, or any of the TLC haters, wonder why the local CO and Dr. Schmitt take an active role in the TLC winter health check? Do you believe that the MDNR would encourage them to participate if TLC was a bunch of law breakers?


 I havnt seen where anyone accused them of breaking the law in effect at that time. Regarding MDNR cooperation with TLC, Carlson and Schmitt served with Rep's from TLC on the original btb committee that came up with the bait ban back in 1997. Its nothing new and continues. 

Here is a portion of the 1997 report that resulted in the bait&feed ban in 1998. This is the minority report of those opposed to the ban. Bates and Bouchard were the TLC representatives, Kruttlins from consolidated, Small and Wirth were cattle guys, Molesworth MSU extension service.

*Minority Report​Submitted​​by: ​*Kevin Small, William Bates, Phil Bouchard, Monty Kruttlin, Ted Kruttlin Jr., and
Dr. John Molesworth, *Lany *Werth​
*/Note: Although strong support was expressed among committee members for most sets of
recommendations, a minority of the Statewide Committee strongly objected to a portion of those
recommendations and were asked to prepare the following minority report.]​*The above group of committee members does not support a mandatory ban on deer feeding
and deer baiting as outlined and recommended.
We strongly support a voluntary ban on deer feeding and deer baiting. The effectiveness of
a voluntary ban depends on the cooperation of the landowners and hunters in the five-county area.
We realize feeding and baiting deer has taken place for many years. To begin to change this
philosophy, landowners and hunters should have the opportunity to expand their knowledge of deer
and deer habitat management. Management skills could be enhanced by an educational program for
landowners and hunters, which focuses on the maintenance and/or improvement of natural habitat
for white-tailed deer. We think wildlife​​*and *forestry specialists fiom several different agencies​
(MDNR,​​M.S.U. Extension, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Fish and Wildlife and others) could be
resource people for this educational program. We strongly feel MDNR should focus financial and
personnel resources toward programs that maintain andlor improve natural habitat, rather than the
enforcement of a mandatory ban on the feeding and baiting of deer. We also strongly feel the active
participation of landowners, hunters and other stakeholders will produce the best long term solution​
to this issue.


----------



## Munsterlndr (Oct 16, 2004)

For the 43% of respondents that oppose baiting for a variety of reasons,

I wonder, do you have the same reaction when you look at this picture










as when you look at this?










Does this one evoke a similar reaction as the other pictures or do you see them as being completely different? (putting aside the obvious archery vs. firearms issue)










It's interesting how peoples perceptions vary about similar practices.


----------

