# Let me apologize up front



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

mcgilvra said:


> Looks like this thread is decomposing fast. RC has some good science for some of his arguments but it is also evident he is philosophically against humans feeding deer for hunting.


Note that he throws science straight out the window in favor of social concerns when it comes to a comparison of crop fields to wildlife food plots. Acre for acre, the two of them are equally likely to transmit disease. Yet he only desires that food plots be banned because, well, he doesn't like food plots. 

For the record, I don't desire any more restrictions on rowcrop farming than we have today, and we need rowcropping to feed us. But recognize that, when it comes to disease transmission, _science is indifferent_ as to whether an acre of soybeans is intended for human use or not. The only thing that differs here is human bias.


----------



## Michihunter (Jan 8, 2003)

8nchuck said:


> Well the problem is how do you ban something that is legal to have. You can't.
> Now I think that you could make it illegal to knowingly sell corn and beats & carrots to someone that will use it in the commission of a crime.


I think that's putting the cart before the horse. IF there is ample evidence that concentrating deer increase the risk of transmission and food plots do concentrate deer, then I believe that those that are supposedly doing it for the benefit of the deer would certainly take it upon themselves to cease and desist. Right?


----------



## johnhunter (Jun 17, 2000)

William H Bonney said:


> I dunno,, I'm not really interpreting it that way. First lemme see if I understand your challenge though. You want Rancid to outline a Baitplot Task Force Bill and send it to the House?? I don't see any hidden agenda in his posts,, I see him laying out a lot of information regarding what has happened in WI,, what has worked, what hasn't, how these prions work,, etc....


You're reading selectively. Note the comments re rowcrop farming mentioned by me and the CRP issue brought up by 8nchuck.


----------



## William H Bonney (Jan 14, 2003)

farmlegend said:


> You're reading selectively. Note the comments re rowcrop farming mentioned by me and the CRP issue brought up by 8nchuck.


I have to. I'm not as smart as most of you..:lol:

I can honestly say I've never heard the term "row-cropping" before. I really wasn't sure what you were saying,, that's why I picked out the part I understood.:lol:

I'm not getting that RC hates food-plots and likes baiting,,, I'm getting that he is pointing out that baitplots are a more than viable medium for transmitting this disease,,,, as are regular farm crops or row-crops, if thats what those are.. I don't think it's too far fetched to think that,, "hey,, maybe baitplots aren't all their cracked up to be",, "maybe we _should_ re-think these baitplots for a minute".


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

I can understand both, against food plots and for food plots. It makes good sense what one poster stated that a reduction still lessens the chance.

What will lessen then chance even greater, reduction of the deer herd!

By reduction of the deer herd to say 500 to 700 thousand total population statewide, that will definitely reduce the opportunity for speading the disease. Wonder how many hunters would like that?


----------



## boehr (Jan 31, 2000)

Rancid Crabtree said:


> 1. The DNR can do nothing right crowd
> 2. The DNR can do nothing wrong crowd.
> 3. Those that hate baiting and to some degree baiters
> 4. Those that love baiting and defend it
> ...


What factions are you in Rancid?

I'm not sure which one I'm in. I don't believe the DNR is always right or always wrong but I will defend them against those that don't know what they are talking about. I have many times also stated that I disagree with some of their polices. Looking at it I guess I would be in the #9, a mixture not only of your items but of all subject matter concerning MDNR. As for Wisconsin and their WDNR, I don't care what they do.


----------



## Nick Adams (Mar 10, 2005)

farmlegend said:


> I invite you to take up a challenge I presented in another thread; namely, provide us with specimen language which would form the basis of a cogent and enforceable law which would ban wildlife food plots.


The difference between agricultural crops and wildlife habitat improvements is largely one of motivation or intent. There is no need to ban food plots directly. It would be sufficient to remove the specific motivation for food plots. That could be accomplished by opening all private lands to public deer hunting in affected areas. Who is going to spend all that time and money improving habitat when there is no guarantee of exclusive benefit?

I anticipate your private property rights rebuttal, but it appears that we have already disposed of that one for the purpose of CWD control in our restrictions on baiting and captive cervid operations.

I don't think the above is at all realistic, likely or desirable. I don't consider it to be worth the political capital necessary to implement because it is obvious to natural resource professionals, including our own DNR, that recreational hunting is not the solution to deer density problems on privately owned, restricted access ownerships. If you look at the DNR's 2002 CWD response plan, they don't even bring up recreational hunting as a method of depopulation. They plan on getting an emergency order from the Governor giving them access to private property and doing all the shooting themselves.

Which brings up the question of why, in an era of CWD infection, anyone would want to attract, concentrate and increase the carrying capacity of deer on a parcel of property? This will only increase the likelihood of a CWD positive deer showing up on your parcel. According to the DNR response plan, when that happens your deer hunting is going to be over: population levels approaching zero for a minimum of 5 years after the last CWD positive deer found in the resulting surveillance zone and "Habitat management in the surveillance zones will emphasize practices that discourage the presence and growth of cervid populations.".

Even more to the point, QDMA and the food plotters have taken it upon themselves to assume the mantle of leaders in the state when it comes to responsible scientific deer management. The perception you give the rest of us when arguing the semantics of bating versus plotting and plotting versus normal agricultural activities is not one of leadership but more along the lines of "NYA, NYA, NYA, I'VE GOT A LOOPHOLE THAT GETS ME AROUND THE EXISTING CWD RESTRICTIONS, SERVING MY OWN SELFISH INTERESTS, AND YOU DON'T..."

Objects in mirror
Are closer than they appear
Mileage may vary

-na


----------



## Justin (Feb 21, 2005)

Good post Nick!


----------



## mcgilvra (Oct 19, 2005)

I wonder if a small food plot, nestled in a forest, isolated from residences and roads might just concentrate dear more than a typical farm field.


----------



## Liver and Onions (Nov 24, 2000)

farmlegend said:


> .........I invite you to take up a challenge I presented in another thread; namely, provide us with specimen language which would form the basis of a cogent and enforceable law which would ban wildlife food plots. Keep in mind that the Pheasants Forever folks (a pretty influential conservation group which dedicates great energy toward promoting wildlife food plots) would likely be even more interested in the text of such a law than most deer hunters would be.


As I have said a few times, the only problem that I see with foodplots is the growing of root crops for the deer. That would be mostly turnips but I guess a few guys did plant RR sugarbeets this year. By the way, this is our 3rd year that we have grown turnips....they're a big hit during the winter when the snow isn't too deep.
Seems fair to me that we ban root crops and pretty easy to write that language.
How many anti-baiters have gone out and removed their bait minerals/salt ?

L & O


----------



## Rancid Crabtree (Apr 14, 2008)

Lots of good points here. Those concerned with the health of the herd will not need a law to force them to stop concentrating deer with bait plots. They will follow the science just like they have so many times asked the baiters to do.

If your going to ban baiting for all the same problems that bait plots causes (And for an even longer period of time) but not ban bait plots just because you can't think of the proper language, that seems like a self serving loophole telling me that you really don't care about the resource but rather you care about your ability to attract and hoard deer on your land.

The science is clear. Why would you have to wait for a law. Do the right thing now. To those that say an acre of legitimate crops that are essential to people and livestock is as hazardous as an acre of non essential bait plots to help you bag a deer. That is true but a weak argument since the very premise is flawed. One is essential and the other is not. Many deer have been bagged without food plots. Get out there and scout and all the other things you have told baiters since the bait ban took effect.

Attracting deer with bait plots is as bad or even worse than bait sites due to the accumulated effect and the extended period of time and bait plots attract deer (including through the winter) Any argument in defense of bait plots will most likely be self serving. Get out and hunt them rather than farming them and shooting a domesticated animal that you are training to visit your bait plot.

Now, as to where I stand on baiting. I don't do it. I couldn't even if I wanted to. I live and hunt in the CWD area where it's been banned but even without the ban, my lease does not allow it. I rarely hunt the same tree twice in a season, baiting does not work for my style of hunting. I have said that a bait ban has done nothing to reduce CWD in the infected area of WI and that's because folks simply switched to bait plots that attract the same deer with the added negative effect of now puling those deer from public lands and keeps them based on the private lands that plot.

As I have said. Your DNR wants herd reduction because of the disease threat AND the fact that your herd is over populated. That over population is partly due to the fact that baiting and bait plots are able to support more deer than the landscape would naturally allow, all for the sake of attracting deer for harvest. That is the definiton of self serving without regard to the herd.

I can not understand how anybody can defend bait plots with anything other than , "It's legal"..... "I like to attract and hold deer on my land"

My first post and few of the ideas I have seen posted here will be neatly packaged and delivered to the MI DNR from a member of the CWD panel that has seen this all before, asking them to consider all the negative effects of growing food to attract deer as well as all the negative environmental impacts of un necessary soil erosion and run off in the water ways as well as, un necessary fertilizer and chemicals that will also ultimately end up in the water system for the sole purpose of benefiting a few selfish deer hunters.


----------



## MarkSend (Mar 11, 2008)

As I stated in a different forum, five acres or less high fence the borders. That should make sure the field is the real deal. Oh, bigger than five and not harvested? New year and a new law to deal with it. This will not end food plots but should cut the number of them way down.


----------

