# Bait = disease



## 6inchtrack

Ok
Here is your chance, convince me.
_I have a single focused agenda! __Quote Kelly Johnson._
Well damn straight. Sense the bait ban of August of 2008 I have argued, bitched, whined, wrote letters texts e-mails to our senators and representatives (both currently in office, and recently elected), started a web site with contact information of our elected officials that also provided form letters so people could print sign and send their objections to the ban. And started two polls to see what public opinion was.
Fighting hard to get the ban overturned.

People want me to stop and or just go away (well 30% of you any way).
So here is the chance.
Just how does bait contribute to the spread of disease?
It tends to congregate deer into small areas, well I have seen pictures of what appears the same thing happening in farm fields, food plots, and orchards. 
So deer are standing too close together while feeding, just how does that spread disease?

Argue your point and convince me.
I will read everything that you post, every link that you provide. 
I was searching the threads, but everything is so spread out and I felt that I was wasting an enormous amount of time to find just little bits and pieces of relevant information.

Im hopping that this doesnt turn into a bitch slap, fist fight, name calling argument and get shut down because I want to read the information that you provide.
So hopefully the member who has made it his personal goal to get threads that I start or participate in shut down or moved will not chime in this time. You know who you are. 

Convince Me.


----------



## gooseboy

15 lookers and no takers....I have yet to be convinced as well...just the other day there was a post by someone who was going to roto-till their turnip food plot....is that a normal farming practice? I would think that normal farming practice would be to harvest the turnips and bring them to market or harvest to canning jars or whatever. At the local CO-OP there is a pile of sugar beets left out in the open, there have been up to 13 deer feeding on this pile at night....while legal to sell, shouldnt these beets be fenced in so there is no chance of spreading any disease?


----------



## Thunderhead

_Cuius in primoris_


----------



## swampbuck

Six inch,.... Thanks for that tip, interesting area. Going back in M.L. season after things calm down.

As for the question.........

MITCHELL V. PALMER and DIANA L. WHIPPLE, Bacterial Diseases of Livestock
Research Unit, National Animal Disease Center, Agricultural Research Service, USDA,
2300 Dayton Avenue, Ames, IA 50010.
In 1994 a free-ranging white-tailed deer (_Odocoileus virginianus_) in Michigan was
diagnosed with tuberculosis due to _Mycobacterium bovis_. Subsequent surveys in
northeast Michigan have identified the first known epidemic of tuberculosis in whitetailed
deer. Information is lacking on the pathogenesis and transmissibility of _M. bovis_​_
_infection in white-tailed deer. In order to determine the efficiency with which deer
transmit tuberculosis to each other, and the routes by which such transmission occurs we
exposed non-inoculated deer to experimentally inoculated deer. Eight deer were
experimentally inoculated by intratonsilar instillation of 2x108 CFU of _M. bovis_. Eight
non- inoculated deer were introduced 21 days after inoculation. Deer were housed in pens
l5O feet2 in size such that 2 in-contact deer were penned with 2 experimentally inoculated
deer. Each pen had a single source of water, hay, and pelleted feed. Sixty-nine days after
introduction, all in-contact deer developed delayed type hypersensitivity reactions to _M.
bovis _PPD as determined by the comparative cervical test. One hundred and twenty days
after inoculation all experimentally inoculated deer were removed. One hundred and fifty
nine days after introduction, 4 in-contact deer were euthanized and examined and 4 new
non- inoculated deer were housed with the remaining original in-contact deer such that 4​new in-contact deer were housed with 4 original in-contact deer. One hundred days after
introduction, all new in-contact deer had developed delayed type hypersensitivity to _M.
bovis _PPD. At 180 days after introduction of new in-contact deer all deer were euthanized
and examined. All in-contact exposed deer developed tuberculosis. Lesions were most
commonly seen in the lung, tracheobronchial and mediastinal lymph nodes.
Experimentally inoculated deer were shown to shed _M. bovis _in nasal secretions, saliva,
feces, and urine. In-contact infected deer also shed _M. bovis _in nasal secretions and
saliva. Hay and pelleted feed were found to contain _M. bovis _at multiple times throughout
the experiment. This study shows that tuberculous deer efficiently transmit _M. bovis _to
other deer in close contact. Lesion distribution in in-contact exposed deer suggests
aerosol transmission as a likely means of infection, however, contamination of shared
feed must also be considered. Body fluids containing _Mycobacterium bovis _may become
aerosolized or directly contaminate feed, both of which may be sources of infection for​other susceptible hosts.


----------



## swampbuck

continued..............

*(4) SURVIVAL OF MYCOBACTERIUM BOVIS ON FEEDS USED FOR
BAITING WHITE-TAILED DEER (ODOCOILEUS VIRGINIANUS) IN
MICHIGAN.​*DIANA L. WHIPPLE, Bacterial Diseases of Livestock Research Unit, National Animal
Disease Center, United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service,
Ames, IA 50010; MITCHELL V. PALMER, Bacterial Diseases of Livestock Research
Unit, National Animal Disease Center, United States Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Research Service, Ames, IA 50010.
Free-ranging white-tailed deer (_Odocoileus virginianus_) in northeast Michigan are
recognized as a wildlife reservoir of tuberculosis caused by _Mycobacterium bovis._​_
_Generally, animals become infected with _M. bovis _by inhalation of aerosolized organisms
or by ingestion of organisms that are present in feed and water. _Mycobacterium bovis _has
been isolated from saliva, nasal secretions, and tonsilar swab samples of experimentally
infected white-tailed deer. Therefore, it is possible for infected deer to shed organisms in
oral secretions and contaminate feed and water, which would then serve as a source of
infection for other animals. Ba iting of deer, which is allowed in Michigan, creates a
situation where several deer eat from the same pile of feed and may contribute to
transmission of tuberculosis. The purpose of this study was to determine how long _M.
bovis _survives on various feeds when stored at different temperatures. The feeds
examined were alfalfa hay, shelled corn, sugar beets, apples, carrots, and potatoes. Feeds​were held at 75° F, 46° F, and 0° F for 2 hours, 1 day, 2 days, 3 days, and 7 days and 2
weeks, 3 weeks, 4 weeks, 8 weeks, 12 weeks, and 16 weeks. _Mycobacterium bovis _was
isolated from all feeds stored at all temperatures for 7 days. At 46° F, _M. bovis _survives
on all feeds except carrots for at least 12 weeks and at 0° F, it survives on all feeds for at
least 16 weeks. Other experiments will be conducted to further examine the role of​baiting in transmission of tuberculosis.

Here the link to the rest of the study, these are pages 20-21 of 127 pages. A lot of stuff in there...http://www.wildlifedisease.org/Documents/Proceedings/Wyoming_00.pdf


Another study.......http://www.jwildlifedis.org/cgi/reprint/39/1/84.pdf


----------



## e. fairbanks

The study depicted in "lest we forget" was conducted by the same scientists from Ames.


----------



## 6inchtrack

Thank you swampbuck
were the signs still up?


----------



## swampbuck

Yes the signs are still there. Will be carrying plat map and GPS.


----------



## 6inchtrack

You will find the survey fence post's (every 100 ft) at the property line, unless they have been removed.


----------



## 6inchtrack

_



M-bovis PPD. At 180 days after introduction of new in-contact deer all deer were euthanized

Click to expand...

_


> _and examined. All in-contact exposed deer developed tuberculosis. Lesions were most_
> _commonly seen in the lung, tracheobronchial and mediastinal lymph nodes._
> _Experimentally inoculated deer were shown to shed M. bovis in nasal secretions, saliva,_
> _feces, and urine. In-contact infected deer also shed M. bovis in nasal secretions and_
> _saliva. Hay and pelleted feed were found to contain M. bovis at multiple times throughout_
> _the experiment. This study shows that tuberculous deer efficiently transmit M. bovis to_
> _other deer in close contact. Lesion distribution in in-contact exposed deer suggests_
> _aerosol transmission as a likely means of infection, however, contamination of shared_
> _feed must also be considered. Body fluids containing Mycobacterium bovis may become_
> _aerosolized or directly contaminate feed, both of which may be sources of infection for_
> _other susceptible hosts._







> Muy Grande- 1500 acre deer ranch, Presque Isle county-bovine TB
> Naturally Occurring tuberculosis in white-tail deer
> From the Zoonotic Disease Research Unit, National Animal Disease Center, Agricultural Research Service, NVSL, Ames, Ia.
> Scientists from Ames came to the ranch, took specimens for culture from 116 deer. Tonsillar, nasal,oral and rectal swab specimens from all 116 deer were taken for bacterial culture. Environmental samples, including hay and pelleted feed from 13 of 16 feeding sites, soil around feeding sites,,and water from 2 ponds were collected for bacterial culture
> Mycobacterium bovis was isolated from 14 of 116 deer. Nine of 14 deer had gross or microscopic lesions consistent w/tuberculosis. 5 of the 14 had no gross lesions but M. bovis was isolated from lymph nodes from these deer. Bacteriological culture of swab specimens of the tonsillar crypt region from 2 of the 14 deer yielded M. bovis. Tracheal swab of 1 of the 2 deer also yielded M bovis. M. bovis was not isolated from feces or rectal, nasal or oral swab specimens from any deer. M. bovis was not isolated from any environmental sample
> Nine (64%) of the 14 deer were female, 5 (36%) were male.
> This study was published in the Journal of the American Veterinary Association, Vol. 216,June 15, 2000


A different kind of testing?
​


----------



## Sib

My issue with baiting has little to do with disease and I cite the ban as changing my opinion. I was neutral about baiting and since have gone to negative about baiting. I hunted around bait as it became popular and as late as last year, though I never baited for my reasons. I hunted both the up and the lp the last few years and the differences I saw swung me from neutral to negative.

I personally think there's a pavlovian effect on deer, particularly mature deer with bait. Young deer aren't likely to show the effect, because I believe it's a learned behavior/response that pushes them into nocturnal patterns when bait and the process of baiting starts. 

Lastly, I reject the attempt to equate baiting to food plots. I personally, don't plant food plots, but I do work on habitat projects to improve my wildlife viewing. I've planted hundreds and hundreds of tress, dozens of varieties, etc. My goal is decent hunting and excellent habitat. I'm as interested in providing habitat for waterfowl and upland birds. I don't stack the land to provide resources for a single species and I get just as big of a kick out of watching suzie mallard build her nest as I do seeing a buck in the woods/field. So, with all this said...everytime I hear the pro-baiting crowd lament and then whine about food plots and talk about banning them I think about the poor fisherman stuck on the bank fishing when you pro-baiters tool by and leave a wake in the water and I wonder if he would be so small as to advocate for the banning of boats, because of the "unfair advantage" those boat fisherman have. :lol:


----------



## swampbuck

Sib how do you feel about root type foodplots such as those that the DNR requested Managers not to plant in the TB Zone.


----------



## HTC

What I do not understand is the hypocrisy associated with those against baiting. The same people who say it is not sporting to bait deer don't have a problem with baiting for bear.

In their view it is not ok to put out a spin cast feeder full of corn, (which benefits a variety of wildlife) and harvest a deer from it. 

However you can go get a whole pile of 2 day old doughnuts for free put them out and then harvest a bear with a cream filled long john smothered in bacon grease hanging from his mouth, that is ok. 

You hear people complain that baiting changes the deer's habits, yep it sure does. It changes the bear's too. I'm sorry, spin it however you want it is the same thing.


----------



## ESOX

> The same people who say it is not sporting to bait deer don't have a problem with baiting for bear.


Thats a huge assumption on your part. I was raised that shooting any animal over bait is unsporting, violating every tenet of fair chase. I know a lot of people that feel that way. Thats why I always have plenty of folks to hunt with.


----------



## HTC

ESOX said:


> Thats a huge assumption on your part. I was raised that shooting any animal over bait is unsporting, violating every tenet of fair chase. I know a lot of people that feel that way. Thats why I always have plenty of folks to hunt with.


You're absolutely right, I should have included the words "Some of" at the beginning.


----------



## Sib

swampbuck said:


> Sib how do you feel about root type foodplots such as those that the DNR requested Managers not to plant in the TB Zone.


I know why people plant them and can see the benefits of providing food long after foliage is down, especially for hunting, but I've never planted any. The DNRE asking people not to plant those crops could be because they believe that the close contact these type of crops create is a potential disease problem, or they could have asked as a way to appease the bait crowd.


----------



## HTC

Sib said:


> I personally think there's a pavlovian effect on deer, particularly mature deer with bait. Young deer aren't likely to show the effect, because I believe it's a learned behavior/response that pushes them into nocturnal patterns when bait and the process of baiting starts.


I am not sure why but in Texas that was never an issue, maybe because they feed year round? Does came for the corn and the big boys came for the does....it was a good deal for all involved.


----------



## Justin

HTC said:


> I am not sure why but in Texas that was never an issue, maybe because they feed year round? Does came for the corn and the big boys came for the does....it was a good deal for all involved.


It's not an issue here either to those that have baited and know how to do it .


----------



## Sam22

I don't want to sidetrack this thread, but I have had enough of the baiting ban. It doesn't seem like good math on the government's behalf. Why not just regulate the hell out of it, tax it. They snuffed a source of revenue, not something they should do. especially in MI. Why not regulate the way bait is dispersed? The DNR could sell kits, with the along with a baiting permit. The kit could contain some sort of template that could be used to measure the distance the bait was spread out on the ground. Even regulate baiting to certain feeds? There must be a way to make everyone happy here. That is a selfless opinion by the way, I prefer to hunt in bait free areas. I don't rely on bait, although in December I would use it.


----------



## Munsterlndr

Anything that concentrates deer increases the potential for the spread of disease, if disease is present. I have no problem with a baiting ban for risk mitigation purposes, in those areas where disease has been documented. County wide bans seem to be a reasonable and appropriate approach. That would mean that baiting would be legal in around 76 out of Michigan's 83 Counties.

I have never called for food plots to be banned. But there is a huge amount of hypocrisy evidenced by those who oppose baiting either for ethical or tactical reasons, not because of the potential for the spread of disease, who then engage in practices which concentrate deer in a similar fashion, all while they are ridiculing and castigating those who use or used bait. That hypocrisy, I believe, has done a tremendous amount of harm to the hunting fraternity and continues to create divisions within the ranks of hunters in a way that is detrimental.


----------



## St. Clair Slayer

I saw more stands with bait than without this past season. If you can't beat em...

I am a state land hunter. I do not want a fine, but the others in the area I hunt don't seem to worried. ??


----------



## ESOX

> I have never called for food plots to be banned. But there is a huge amount of hypocrisy evidenced by those who oppose baiting either for ethical or tactical reasons, not because of the potential for the spread of disease, who then engage in practices


I oppose baiting for ethical reasons, but my opposition goes no further than refusing to bait myself. If some people are incapable of getting a deer without sitting on bait, and there is no sound scientific evidence to ban baiting, then they should be allowed to sit on that bait pile. Particularly in zones where the population is well above the DNR's target, we should make it as easy as possible for everyone to fill their tag(s), regardless of their hunting skill level.


----------



## 6inchtrack

ESOX said:


> I oppose baiting for ethical reasons, but my opposition goes no further than refusing to bait myself. *If some people are incapable of getting a deer without sitting on bait, and there is no sound scientific evidence to ban baiting, then they should be allowed to sit on that bait pile.* Particularly in zones where the population is well above the DNR's target, we should make it as easy as possible for everyone to fill their tag(s), regardless of their hunting skill level.


:SHOCKED:..._faint...thud_


----------



## ESOX

That really shouldn't shock you. I am a fly fisherman who despises flies only water. I believe everyone should have the greatest possible opportunity to use the resources as long as their methods aren't detrimental to the resources, or greatly impede others from enjoying the same. Me wanting to impose my values upon anyone else just because I don't like the activity would make me no better than.......oh, the MBH. :lol:


----------



## traditional

Very civil discussion.

Swampbuck very good information. Thanks

This study is in a penned area with a single sourse of water, hay, and pellets. Does this represent free range deer?

In my opinion where disease is present bait should not be used period. In disease free areas I feel bait should be allowed but only 2 gallons at a time and spread over a wide area. More than likely the bait would last no more than one or two days. Root crops that will be used by more than one deer should be discouraged. I know some people will not follow this rule, but they wouldn't follow any of the rules. 

When I hunted I chose not to use bait. But, I did not belittle those who did. The bowhunters I knew said it was an effective tool to deliver a quick humane arrow and I am all for that.


----------



## GVDocHoliday

Though the same thing happens on orchards, foodplots, and fields, its something that can't be controlled. Is kinda like a small flame on the end of a match. 

Bait piles, on the other hand can be controlled or at least legislated to be illegal. The efficiency in which they can be controlled relies in the ability of law enforcement to find them. 

Take away that limited control, and the bait piles are lime throwing gas on that match. 

Now that my analogy is established, I can say that the match flame is small enough to be manageable by the environment.


----------



## 6inchtrack

Do they have a inoculation for M-Bovis?


----------



## swampbuck

traditional said:


> Very civil discussion.
> 
> Swampbuck very good information. Thanks
> 
> This study is in a penned area with a single sourse of water, hay, and pellets. Does this represent free range deer?
> 
> In my opinion where disease is present bait should not be used period. In disease free areas I feel bait should be allowed but only 2 gallons at a time and spread over a wide area. More than likely the bait would last no more than one or two days. Root crops that will be used by more than one deer should be discouraged. I know some people will not follow this rule, but they wouldn't follow any of the rules.
> 
> When I hunted I chose not to use bait. But, I did not belittle those who did. The bowhunters I knew said it was an effective tool to deliver a quick humane arrow and I am all for that.


I believe it would be virtually impossible to prove that TB was caught from a baitpile in free range deer.........I do believe that the study does establish that it is possible for TB to be spread by baiting and certain food plots/crops. In my opinion that is an established fact.




6inchtrack said:


> Do they have a inoculation for M-Bovis?


 They were testing an oral vaccine a couple years ago, dont know if it worked out. Or if it was a viable option in a free range herd even if the medication was effective. Should be easy to research.


----------



## 6inchtrack

swampbuck said:


> I believe it would be virtually impossible to prove that TB was caught from a baitpile in free range deer.........I do believe that the study does establish that it is possible for TB to be spread by baiting and certain food plots/crops. In my opinion that is an established fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They were testing an oral vaccine a couple years ago, dont know if it worked out. Or if it was a viable option in a free range herd even if the medication was effective. Should be easy to research.


Thinking a different kind of bait pile, not to hunt over, but to inoculate.


----------



## fairfax1

From a post above: _"In my opinion where disease is present bait should not be used period. In disease free areas I feel bait should be allowed but only 2 gallons at a time and spread over a wide area. ............ Root crops that will be used by more than one deer should be discouraged. I know some people will not follow this rule, but they wouldn't follow any of the rules."_

Indeed. Some won't follow rules. 

And the period...just in the last 20 or 25 yrs....where baiting went from being strictly a cheaters' activity to being widely practiced in Michigan has shown that that tempatation to cheat....to improve one's own sightings, or defensively because a neighbor is baiting.....seems to be endemic to the practice.

When the club country bait-mountains were widely castigated and prohibited we then went to a 5gallon limit. That was widely abused. We then went to a limit of just 2gallons spread out over 100sqft. That was widely abused. We then went to a total ban in the LP. That too was ...and is...widely abused, most disappointingly, most egregiously, and most damning, in the TB-zone itself. 

Something about baiting ....like snagging amongst fishers....brings out the worst in hunters, or more likely, the worst type of hunters. 

Adhering to our game laws is a duty of honor. Mainly because it is the single hunter, solitary in the woods & fields, outside of society's prying eyes, with apprehension remote, who has to enforce society's expectations for rule of law and the fair-chase ethic. 

Plus, there is the moral freight of killing.....for fun. Because sport hunting has, as an integral part of it, the death, often painful, of a much admired animal...because of that, sport hunters have a higher moral burden to carry. And adhere to. 

Baiters, far too many of them, have shown an inability to meet that code of honor. Of adhering to laws that others adhere to. Couple that today with the weight of the scientific community who clearly indict the practice as a risk enhancer to our wildlife resource...........well, is it any wonder that those who continue to practice baiting in Michigan's lower peninsual draw criticism? who become defined as poachers?

There are plenty of apologist, minimizers, and distracters who post on internet forums....or who hold court at the local watering-holes.....claiming that the ban is wrong, that their continuence to bait is some noble form of civil disobedience, like a nip of the flask during Prohibition. That is all rationalization. An attempt to justify a practice that is known to be illegal. Known to be a risk enhancer. Known to be a violation of that code of honor all sportsmen must adhere to. 

A couple of mantras have emerged amongst the bait-philes: _"if disease is __present"...._being one. Who is to know if it is there right now or not? Most certainly we cannot trust some internet chatterati whose perspective is mostly over the keyboard. And with the restriction of operating budgets our own regulators may not be able to have as wide and full an inspection of our herd as needed. In other words, disease could well be out there....waiting, incubating, slowly spreading. Are we to risk that? Because of carrots? In short, the imagined shield of justification..."_only where disease is present_"......is a false rationale. The deplorable TB-zone baiters show that to us all ...over and over again.

The chatter about 'taxing bait'....is silly. Shallow thinking. When CWD hits our free range herd...and it will, as its advance appears inexorable......no amount of tax 'revenue' generated by vegetable piles will help mitigate the damage to our resource, our hunting culture, or to our society.


----------



## Munsterlndr

A steaming load of high 'falutin balderdash, typical of individuals who continue to plant food plots, including apples, for deer consumption, despite not actually "knowing" whether disease is present in their area. Instead of chastising others about employing practices that may pose a threat to the resource, maybe a good long look in the mirror is warranted. Talk about risk enhancers!. The cup runneth over with double standards and hypocrisy.


----------



## swampbuck

6inchtrack said:


> Thinking a different kind of bait pile, not to hunt over, but to inoculate.


 I believe that was the delivery method being studied.....I do not know if the vaccine and/or delivery was effective.

Fairfax,

your Post #30, Is the most well written and clearly stated analogy of the situation in relation to the TB ZONE....... as people have continued to break the baiting laws they have tightened the restrictions. Baiting will never be allowed regardless of disease if people continue to violate the laws as they have been. Bad behavior deserves no reward.

Munster, You apple tree photo's reminded me.......Recently in an old DNR rye field in the Backus creek area, Roscommon county. I found that the DNR has planted/fenced 20 +/- apple trees. That was surprising and unexpected.


----------



## radiohead

Don't sell yourself short. Its much greater than 30%.



6inchtrack said:


> People want me to stop and or just go away (well 30% of you any way)




Sent from my Droid using Tapatalk


----------



## tjstebb

My only complaint on this subject is......Regaurdless of how it is transmitted form one deer to another. There was NO deer in the Michigan free ranging herd that had the disease! I would absolutely find it easier to swallow this ban IF 1 deer in the free ranging herd would have tested positive!


tjstebb


----------



## 6inchtrack

Thanks everybody (except the headjob over there)
I have a little better understanding now.
Now that this has been banished to sound off, I'll just let it go.
Thanks again


----------



## flyting

Keep the rap line handy every time deer a congregating in a farm field give them a call.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jasonvanorder

One thing just crossed my mind. Someone brought up putting a tax on bait but that could be a problem. Say i go to the local CO-OP for a bag of corn to mix for cattle feed does that mean it should be taxed because i could use it as bait? If that is the case alot of farmers that dont raise crops for feed will be very unhappy. Just something to think about.


----------



## Sib

tjstebb said:


> My only complaint on this subject is......Regaurdless of how it is transmitted form one deer to another. There was NO deer in the Michigan free ranging herd that had the disease! I would absolutely find it easier to swallow this ban IF 1 deer in the free ranging herd would have tested positive!
> 
> 
> tjstebb


I think you're confusing CWD with TB. TB has been found in our free ranging herd, hence the bait ban and liberal antlerless permits.


----------



## FISHMANMARK

Sib said:


> I think you're confusing CWD with TB. TB has been found in our free ranging herd, hence the bait ban and liberal antlerless permits.


Wasn't the ban a result of CWD at a game farm? Since that hasn't exploded the way they thought it would. The focus has been shifted to TB. Or, at least thats how I look at it.


----------



## Sib

You two are right about CWD and the ban. I was confusing the limit of 2 gallons that came after TB. Sorry for the confusion.


----------



## Justin

skipper34 said:


> Yeah, yeah. That's because it is a done deal, Justin. Why are you so quick to jump my bones? Because I agree with the ban? My argument is why do you and others keep crying for a lifting of the ban when it is now law? Why not cry for other laws to be lifted, such as what I mentioned? That was my point, whether you like it or not. And, yes, I can't seem to understand why people "can't get over it". And like you say, people have every right to discuss the issue. I am discussing the issue.


If you are discussing the issue, great, that's what we're here for. It really bugs me when guys say "get over it, it's a done deal" because it's not. The plan called for a three year ban. That is what's over. They have'nt found any more so let's stick to the plan. I personally don't care if I bait again, didn't use much anyway, but let's stick to the plan. I don't recall any of the things that you listed having a three year ban. It seems that the guys that just want it to go away quietly have other issues with baiting, not just disease. Sorry if I came across as attacking you, did not mean it that way.


----------



## MPT

What's the scientific evidence between a bait plot, a food plot and a crop field as far as concentrating deer goes? Concentrations of deer are natural as far as protection from predators and in the UP migrating from far around to over winter. I understand farmers say the tb problem has been around for a century up near Alpena. If it's such a bad comunicateable disease it should be spread to Ohio by now. 

Why does it take a case of CWD to ban baiting over an entire peninsula? Shouldn't we be banning deer farms first since that's how the disease has been spread here and in Wisconsin?

Lastly what about deer urine attractants which have been banned in Ontario because of the finding of prions in the stuff. I believe that causes many of these diseases or even worse ones like mad cow disease.


----------



## flinch

You're either part of the solution or part of the problem. Doing anything that may help spread disease seems a little crazy to me. Nobody has to prove anything. The risk is there so why chance it?


----------



## Pinefarm

It really bugs me when guys say "get over it, it's a done deal" because it's not. The plan called for a three year ban. 

It's clear you're not aware of it, but the NRC permanently banned baiting in October of 2008.

*Commission approves permanent deer baiting ban*

Thursday, October 09, 2008

LANSING -- A six-month ban on baiting deer and elk in the lower peninsula was replaced with a permanent ban Thursday following a unanimous vote by the state's Natural Resources Commission.

The NRC heard testimony from supporters, critics, state veterinarians and Dr. Mike Miller, who is the head wildlife veterinarian for the state of Colorado. Miller is considered the world expert on Chronic Wasting Disease.

"It is a pretty critical prevention strategy," Miller said when asked by NRC chairman Keith Charters if a baiting ban was justified.

The six-month ban went into effect in August, after a 3-year old doe on a Kent County deer farm was found to have CWD. The Michigan 2002 chronic wasting disease response plan requires the DNR director to ban baiting in the peninsula where the disease is found.

Miller, who participated in a teleconference with the commission, said the baiting ban creates a broad protective safety net. He said it was "amazing" that Michigan still allowed baiting given all of the trouble it has had with TB showing up in deer.

Critics of the ban, primarily growers and sellers of vegetables sold as bait, said they were being hurt economically.

Supporters said there would be an even larger economic loss at stake if the disease showed up in the wild deer herd and spread. Deer hunting in Michigan generates $500 million in economic activity each year.

"We don't want to play Russian Roulette with the wild deer herd," Charters said.

Miller affirmed state procedures so far. He is one of several experts consulted by Michigan natural resources and agriculture officials, looking for outside feedback.

"I can't think of anything you've missed. The challenge will be maintaining public support," Miller said.

The commission vote followed on the heels of an announcement during the afternoon that Ingham County Circuit Court Judge Joyce Draganchuk had upheld the DNR's authority to issue the ban. Farmers and store owners had sued the agency, maintaining they had been hurt by the ban.

DNR director Becky Humphries said the decision was the commission's to make. She had executed her responsibilities under the 2002 CWD response plan.

"The commission thought it was a serious issue and they wanted to take it up," she said.

E-mail Howard Meyerson: [email protected]


----------



## Pinefarm

From MDNR FAQ's on baiting...

How long will the ban be in effect?

On October 10, 2008, an NRC action made the ban permanent.


----------



## duckhunter382

Can anyone explain how 2.5 gallons of bait spread out over a 10 ft section is going to spread disease more than an oak tree in the middle of the pines? I know there was a lot of guys putting out more than the legal limit but dont remember the dnr enforcing the rule much. Now we have a free for all with the baiters that are still dumping 50 lb bags and crates and the legal responsible guys that follow the rules are punished. We had a bait limit that prevented TB which was found in the herd but doesnt prevent cwd which has not even been found in the herd. Thats really convincing to me that the plan is working. And for all you "morally superior elite hunters", I will see you this spring while I am dunking bait for trout and your wearing those ugly thin waders flipping your overpriced flys with your overpriced fly rod and we can have this same argument when I put that legal rainbow in my bucket.


----------



## Pinefarm

Here's an interesting link from 2000, from the farmers themselves...

http://www.michiganfarmbureau.com/farmnews/transform.php?xml=20000615/deerbaiting.xml

June 15, 2000

*NRC ignores scientific findings, allows deer baiting and feeding to continue*

by Jennifer Vincent

In a move that seems to disregard science, the Michigan Natural Resources Commission (NRC) voted June 8 to continue to allow limited feeding and baiting of the state's free-ranging, white-tailed deer. 

The final rules for the 2000 hunting season fall short of fulfilling the governor's call for eradication of bovine tuberculosis, according to Rob Anderson, Michigan Farm Bureau legislative counsel. "All the scientific research coming from the national laboratory in Ames, Iowa, says that a major step to reducing the transmission of this disease - in both deer and cattle - is to eliminate the practices of baiting and feeding deer. Bringing deer together artificially has promoted the spread of TB and why the NRC would want to continue down that path is frustrating." 

According to the new rules, baiting and feeding will only be halted after a TB-positive deer is confirmed. A TB-positive deer would trigger a ban of those practices in the county where the deer was found. However, the "trigger" would not take effect between the time when the DNR Hunting and Trapping Guide is published (summer) and Jan. 1. The rule would be suspended until Jan. 2. 

"This rule does not follow science and is reactive to the disease instead of proactive," Anderson said. 

At least one NRC commissioner agreed. Nancy Douglas of Menominee County in the Upper Peninsula said, "The trigger criteria is helpful. Personally, I would like to be more aggressive in preventing the finding of one." 

The "trigger" recognizes that if one TB-positive deer is found, "we're probably going to find more and we need to work to get it under control," Douglas said. 

Michigan Farm Bureau members, recognizing the conclusions of the scientific community, passed policy supporting a deer feeding and baiting ban during their last annual meeting in December. 

The NRC did not consider any of the three options outlined by DNR staff, which called for a ban on feeding and baiting in areas of the state and more aggressive limitations elsewhere. "The DNR staff reported that the chances of not finding another TB-positive animal in an area where one has already been confirmed is 10 billion to 1," Anderson said. "And deer do not appreciate or respect county boundaries." 

Douglas also expressed some concern about using county boundaries rather than radiuses for additional restrictions around TB-positive deer. "What about a deer on the edge of a county?" she asked. "What about the next county just across the line?" 

Douglas said the NRC chose to use county lines as a definition for a ban because people understand county lines. "To do something else would be too confusing," she said. "I'm not totally confident with that explanation, but I understand it." 

The NRC voted to reduce the amount of allowable bait from five gallons to two gallons in the Lower Peninsula and maintain the current limit of five gallons in the Upper Peninsula. 

For recreational feeding, the commission established a two-gallon limit statewide for the next year, in effect maintaining the existing limit in the Lower Peninsula but reducing the amount of allowable feed from five gallons to two in the Upper Peninsula. 

NRC feeding and baiting regulations 
Baiting: Two (2) gallons of bait per hunting site per day in the Lower Peninsula, five (5) gallons of bait per hunting site per day in the Upper Peninsula. 

Recreational feeding: Two (2) gallons per residence per day (within 100 yards of the residence) 

Type of bait and feed permitted: No restrictions 

Supplemental feeding in the U.P.: Same as in 1999. Starting Jan. 1, 2002, allowed only in areas that have had antlerless permits. 

When bait may be placed: Any day during the permitted deer hunting season (Oct. 1 through Jan. 1) 

Spreading of bait or feed: May be spread by any means, including mechanical, spin-cast feeders, subject to the daily spreading limit.


----------



## Justin

I am aware of that. I don't believe though, that it cant be reversed.


----------



## swampbuck

MPT said:


> Shouldn't we be banning deer farms first since that's how the disease has been spread here and in Wisconsin?


Are you refering to a game ranch in Wisc. or a deer farm, as in QDM property............

In Wisc. CWD originated in a heavily QDM managed area. It is believed to have come from contaminated mineral supplements that included Animal parts in the manufacturing.

Those mineral supplements were used to increase the size of......UMMM well.....Mature bucks.

Cant blame deer ranches in Wisc....One of the other states (Colorado I think) is credited to taxidermy waste.


----------



## Munsterlndr

As far as a permanent ban, nothing is permanent other then death and taxes. What the NRC hath wrought, the NRC can tear asunder. 

New NRC Chairman, several new commissioners on the NRC, new DNR director and 3 years of testing with every indication that CWD never made it into the free ranging deer herd. 

The CWD plan that everybody keeps pointing to called for an *interim* baiting ban, meaning temporary. While the CWD task force was formulating their plan, they heard testimony from a number of different experts on CWD from various states.

One of the individuals testifying was Dr. Julie Langenberg of the Wisconsin DNR. When asked about bans on supplemental feeding and baiting as part of a CWD response plan, she stated _"the issue of feeding and baiting is a balancing issue of biology and sociology. A complete ban is not realistic but should focus on eliminating the risk for the deer population"_

It certainly begs the question, which is more effective, a complete ban that alienates a large portion of the hunting population and results in limited compliance, thus having very little real impact in mitigating risk; or limited restrictions that encourage cooperation from greater numbers of hunters, thus actually reducing the amount of bait in the woods substantially and actually reducing the potential for the spread of disease. 

Wisconsin chose the latter, limiting the ban to those counties where deer have actually tested positive for disease. Michigan chose the former and the result is that the baiting ban is totally ineffective and largely ignored, even in those areas where disease is known to be present. 

Michigan would have been much better off to limit the ban to the TB zone and Kent co, while at the same time putting some teeth into prosecuting offenders and concentrating law enforcement officers in those areas where there is actually disease that could potentially be stopped from being spread. There would have been much more credibility and compliance with such a decision. 

Mike Miller, who was quoted above, is a scientist. He knows nothing about crafting an enforceable public policy that is likely to actually accomplish the goal intended. He is also the same guy who predicted that bTB levels in Michigan would exceed a 10% prevalence rate, using the same computer modeling techniques that he has used to come up with the dire predictions of the impact of CWD. Contrary to his projections, bTB prevalence rates hover around 1.5% in the impacted areas.

What is the point of a baiting ban if it is almost universally ignored and almost totally unenforced, other then to give the appearance of trying to "do something" about the issue?


----------



## Spartan88

I have enjoyed reading this thread, thanks gang.


----------



## swampbuck

Munsterlndr said:


> As far as a permanent ban, nothing is permanent other then death and taxes. What the NRC hath wrought, the NRC can tear asunder.
> 
> New NRC Chairman, several new commissioners on the NRC, new DNR director and 3 years of testing with every indication that CWD never made it into the free ranging deer herd.
> 
> The CWD plan that everybody keeps pointing to called for an *interim* baiting ban, meaning temporary. While the CWD task force was formulating their plan, they heard testimony from a number of different experts on CWD from various states.
> 
> One of the individuals testifying was Dr. Julie Langenberg of the Wisconsin DNR. When asked about bans on supplemental feeding and baiting as part of a CWD response plan, she stated _"the issue of feeding and baiting is a balancing issue of biology and sociology. A complete ban is not realistic but should focus on eliminating the risk for the deer population"_
> 
> It certainly begs the question, which is more effective, a complete ban that alienates a large portion of the hunting population and results in limited compliance, thus having very little real impact in mitigating risk; or limited restrictions that encourage cooperation from greater numbers of hunters, thus actually reducing the amount of bait in the woods substantially and actually reducing the potential for the spread of disease.
> 
> Wisconsin chose the latter, limiting the ban to those counties where deer have actually tested positive for disease. Michigan chose the former and the result is that the baiting ban is totally ineffective and largely ignored, even in those areas where disease is known to be present.
> 
> Michigan would have been much better off to limit the ban to the TB zone and Kent co, while at the same time putting some teeth into prosecuting offenders and concentrating law enforcement officers in those areas where there is actually disease that could potentially be stopped from being spread. There would have been much more credibility and compliance with such a decision.
> 
> Mike Miller, who was quoted above, is a scientist. He knows nothing about crafting an enforceable public policy that is likely to actually accomplish the goal intended. He is also the same guy who predicted that bTB levels in Michigan would exceed a 10% prevalence rate, using the same computer modeling techniques that he has used to come up with the dire predictions of the impact of CWD. Contrary to his projections, bTB prevalence rates hover around 1.5% in the impacted areas.
> 
> What is the point of a baiting ban if it is almost universally ignored and almost totally unenforced, other then to give the appearance of trying to "do something" about the issue?


 While I have never liked baiting, And would prefer the ban stay in place............You make a VERY GOOD POINT. If they.....

Went back to the 2 gallon limit, maintained the TB zone ban, And a CWD zone around the kent county area. And enforced all 3, very strongly with severe MANDATORY penaltys, The equivalent of poaching, including loss of guns vehicle etc. and hunting priveleges.

I would support that.......I think you could actually have a chance if you guys got behind that.


----------



## ibthetrout

Munsterlndr said:


> What is the point of a baiting ban if it is almost universally ignored and almost totally unenforced, other then to give the appearance of trying to "do something" about the issue?


Just my opinion here, but I really don't think it is universally ignored or totally unenforced. I read the bi-weekly DNR reports religiously and they are chocked full of illegal baiters receiving tickets. Also you see on here there are many of us that use to bait, would still like to bait, but don't because it is now illegal. My thought, and no way to prove this either way, is that the people still baiting are those who would have still been illegally putting out too much bait when it was legal. Those same people will ignore any of our hunting laws that don't suit them. Basically the old offenders are still offending and have just added one more offense to their list of bad deeds.

I did bait before the ban. I don't bait now, it's illegal. Please don't lump us all into that category. It's just not like that.


----------



## pescadero

HTC said:


> The same people who say it is not sporting to bait deer don't have a problem with baiting for bear.


Yes I do.


----------



## bone

a study that was posted on this site said disease lives on food stuffs for a minimum of 12 hours. 

if your for the baiting ban for "the sake of the herd" you would need to be for banning anything that congregates deer to an area. unless you believe the only thing more than one deer would visit in a 12 hour period is a bait pile. most certainly not a food plot...couldnt be. 

anytime i baited it didnt last more than 24 hours at a time, gone just about every day. how bout that food plot? is it getting refreshed with clean veggies? or is it just a sespool of diseased spittle and fesces for the deer to munch on? yup i went there gomer.


i dont bait because its illegal, otherwise i would. if cwd gets in the wild herd its gonna spread, bait or no bait. deer are herd animals. period! some dumb **** at a game ranch is gonna ship an illegal deer in and ruin it. i just dont understand why the focus isnt on where the disease is going to come from. not how its going to be spread when it gets here (in the wild)

tighten the noose on the game ranches...police the heck out of them


----------



## Munsterlndr

ibthetrout said:


> Just my opinion here, but I really don't think it is universally ignored or totally unenforced. I read the bi-weekly DNR reports religiously and they are chocked full of illegal baiters receiving tickets. Also you see on here there are many of us that use to bait, would still like to bait, but don't because it is now illegal. My thought, and no way to prove this either way, is that the people still baiting are those who would have still been illegally putting out too much bait when it was legal. Those same people will ignore any of our hunting laws that don't suit them. Basically the old offenders are still offending and have just added one more offense to their list of bad deeds.
> 
> I did bait before the ban. I don't bait now, it's illegal. Please don't lump us all into that category. It's just not like that.


Prior to the ban, something like 400,000 hunters in Michigan used bait. Currently, there are probably about 50,000+ hunters legally using bait in the UP and anywhere from 100,000 to 200,000 or so baiting illegally in the LP (based on bait sales). The DNR may ticket 3,000 or so of those illegal baiters over the course of the season(I think that's probably a very high estimate). Having a roughly 97-99% chance of not being caught is not likely to result in a very high level of compliance, especially if the DNR has failed to make a legitimate case for the ban from a scientific standpoint. It was one deer in an enclosure. If multiple wild deer had been confirmed to have CWD, then I think the level of compliance would be much, much higher but I think an awful lot of hunters think that the threat is nil and many think that the DNR is simply using CWD as an excuse for banning bait for reasons unrelated to risk mitigation. 

I used to bait and I don't any longer. I'm not lumping everyone into the same boat as those choosing to not comply but I also think that many of those who are still baiting would not fall into the same category of violators as those who shoot deer out of season or without a license or who shine deer at night. I think most see it as a pretty minor transgression, akin to speeding or racking a shell into the chamber ten minutes prior to legal shooting light.


----------



## Pinefarm

Why? NLP hunters have managed to kill off all the deer without bait. Right? Not even a track is what we hear from many.


----------



## flinch

bone said:


> some dumb **** at a game ranch is gonna ship an illegal deer in and ruin it.


Yup, it's coming either from an illegal deer at a game ranch or some other illegal activity like a hunter bringing it in with an illegal import. May as well get used to minimizing disease spread now and hunting a smaller herd so it hurts less later.


----------



## HTC

Pinefarm said:


> From MDNR FAQ's on baiting...
> 
> How long will the ban be in effect?
> 
> On October 10, 2008, an NRC action made the ban permanent.


If you keep reading down the page you will see this statement:




> The CWD plan calls for three years of testing and that is what will be done. The situation will be re-evaluated after that testing.


When I read this I see that they have a CWD plan. When they detected it they immediatley put out a 6 month ban, once it was verified they made it permanent. After three years of negative testing they have the option of reversing it. All I am saying is don't get all giddy on their use of the word, "Permanent" because they are leaving the door open.


----------



## Pinefarm

The same was said about xbows. Those 3 year "plans" are mere guidelines.

Nobody wants baiting back except for some disgruntled hunters. The DNR doesn't want it back, even the Farm Bureau doesn't want it back. 

Some hunters PO'd that they no longer see deer on their poorer deer habitat doesn't make a case. Clearly, hunters can kill enough deer without it. Otherwise herd numbers would have jumped in the north after the ban.


----------



## skipper34

Justin said:


> It's fairly simple Skipper. Baiters bait for the same reasons plotters plot...to draw deer to their hunting spot. As long as that is left alone baiters are happy. They chose to pick just one risk and outlaw it. I don't understand how anyone could think that is right. If they would do anything to eliminate the other risks, I think we would see much better compliance and less complaining. This is just my opinion. If you have never hunted northern state land, it is harder to understand.


I have hunted northern state land for nearly 40 years. I have never used bait. I always harvest at least one deer per year. However, I also do alot of scouting and traveling to find new areas to hunt. Being retired gives me alot of time to do this. I realize not everyone has that kind of time. Just for the record, I have never been anti-baiting when and where it is legal. What chaps me is the blatant violations of what is now a law, no different than any other game law. I know there are many hunters who rely on baiting to hunt. No problem, but my question is, if I can be successful without bait, why is it that many hunters consider baiting as important as carrying their hunting weapon? Back when I worked for a living I didn't have nearly the time nor the resourses to travel long distances north to scout for deer. Our hunting camp was located mostly in the same area of northern Michigan, an area that had a low deer population. But even so, we managed to kill deer each year, without putting bait out. Frankly, if they bring baiting back I wouldn't give it a second thought. But I would be happy to see hunters united again, if that is what it takes.


----------



## Pinefarm

Who baits in Bay County? :lol: Not enough crops in the area? :lol:

Now in my area, more bait. When I talked to the CO in late October, he had 14 baiting calls he had to check out.


----------



## Pinefarm

300 guys on a non-scientific poll? OK, so out of 45,000 members, 300 guys PO'ed that bait ripped the scab off voted on a poll made by the biggest pro-baiter of all 45,000? 

3000 votes maybe. But ony 300? :lol:

The point of the pigs is, are those in favor of baiting also in favor of doing everything necessary to try to stop pigs from being established?


----------



## 6inchtrack

Pinefarm said:


> 300 guys on a non-scientific poll? OK, so out of 45,000 members, 300 guys PO'ed that bait ripped the scab off voted on a poll made by the biggest pro-baiter of all 45,000?
> 
> 3000 votes maybe. But ony 300? :lol:


So a little over 100 said no, so out of 45,000 members, 100 agree with the ban, what does that tell you buddy.
If you are claiming that a poll on this site does not show anything then what does it say for those APR polls in the whitetail forum?
Valid? Or can we disregard that information as well?


----------



## Justin

skipper34 said:


> I have hunted northern state land for nearly 40 years. I have never used bait. I always harvest at least one deer per year. However, I also do alot of scouting and traveling to find new areas to hunt. Being retired gives me alot of time to do this. I realize not everyone has that kind of time. Just for the record, I have never been anti-baiting when and where it is legal. What chaps me is the blatant violations of what is now a law, no different than any other game law. I know there are many hunters who rely on baiting to hunt. No problem, but my question is, if I can be successful without bait, why is it that many hunters consider baiting as important as carrying their hunting weapon? Back when I worked for a living I didn't have nearly the time nor the resourses to travel long distances north to scout for deer. Our hunting camp was located mostly in the same area of northern Michigan, an area that had a low deer population. But even so, we managed to kill deer each year, without putting bait out. Frankly, if they bring baiting back I wouldn't give it a second thought. But I would be happy to see hunters united again, if that is what it takes.


Well I'll be... Now I understand your thinking. I agree too. I hate the fact that so many could not quit for 3 years. I have, but my bow hunting has suffered. I dont have the time or energy that I had back when I was young and single. Deer sightings are few during bow season due to the nieghboring landowners food plots and bait. All we can do is sit close to the property lines and hope.


----------



## Pinefarm

It tells me those who like the ban for a more natural hunting experience aren't nearly as emotional about the issue as those who need bait for one reason or another. And that is who's most emotional about this issue. If they didn't care either way, they wouldn't care either way.


----------



## Justin

Pinefarm said:


> It tells me those who like the ban for a more natural hunting experience aren't nearly as emotional about the issue as those who need bait for one reason or another. And that is who's most emotional about this issue. If they didn't care either way, they wouldn't care either way.


Why should they be? As long as the deer are naturally traveling to their fields or food plots. Many on here think that is natural.


----------



## diztortion

Pinefarm said:


> It tells me those who like the ban for a more natural hunting experience aren't nearly as emotional about the issue as those who need bait for one reason or another. And that is who's most emotional about this issue. If they didn't care either way, they wouldn't care either way.


That is the most loaded statement I've seen on here. I've been lurking and will continue to lurk, but the majority of the bait threads have been closed to the other "non-emotional" anti-baiters.


----------



## swampbuck

6inchtrack said:


> If you are claiming that a poll on this site does not show anything then what does it say for those APR polls in the whitetail forum?
> Valid? Or can we disregard that information as well?


pinefarm........Did you miss that question ?


----------



## tjstebb

Pinefarm said:


> It tells me those who like the ban for a more natural hunting experience aren't nearly as emotional about the issue as those who need bait for one reason or another. And that is who's most emotional about this issue. If they didn't care either way, they wouldn't care either way.


 
I think this would change if there was a reversal of the ban  . You would find almost every bait plotter on hear screaming the resource is in danger now because the lazy baiters can bait again....Just for the record i would be included in the lazy baiters! 

I could raise a calf to a cow and spend endless hours feeding it and shoveling crap and doing all the things it takes to raise a cow....Then i could go out and shoot it and butcher it myself....But i am lazy so i go to the store every weekend and buy my beef instead :lol:. My point is i hunt to put food on my families table and if i use a few apples to help make that happen so be it! I pay the same for my hunting license as a non baiter did.... Again i have not baited since the ban and won't unless it is legal again.

tjstebb


----------



## tjstebb

I forgot to mention this is amazing that this thread has gone this long....See miracles can happen as long as we all stay civil and this has been a very interesting thread thus far.....


tjstebb


----------



## traditional

Pinefarm said:


> So those hunting less desireable land can peel deer away from more desireable land?
> Sounds like something the liberals would love! :lol:


Bingo!

Peel deer away from my desireable land.


More like drip down economics.

99.9 for me. 0.1 for you.


----------



## Doehead

"It tells me those who like the ban for a more natural hunting experience aren't nearly as emotional about the issue as those who need bait for one reason or another."

What is "natural"?.. Relating to nature. Occurring in a normal way.

What is normal about food plots? What is their purpose? 

What is normal about baiting? What is it's purpose?

Natural is "armpit" hair on women, are you for that natural experience?
Normal is "clean shaven".
Get off your high horse and wake up Mr. 

If our forefathers had your attitude, we'd all be speaking English mate.

G'day
​


----------



## Pinefarm

What's the obsession with food plots? Few people have food plots compared to all those who baited.

I don't have any plots and the closest neighbor that does is like a mile away and he has like a 1 acre field about 200 yards from a field that's almost a half mile square.

It's not "either/or", that if you're not baiting, you must be planting crops. Most people who aren't baiting were just hunting, things like funnels, trails, etc. 

Very few Michigan hunters are sitting over a food plot and my guess is even fewer are successful.


----------



## Justin

Pinefarm said:


> What's the obsession with food plots? Few people have food plots compared to all those who baited.
> 
> I don't have any plots and the closest neighbor that does is like a mile away and he has like a 1 acre field about 200 yards from a field that's almost a half mile square.
> 
> It's not "either/or", that if you're not baiting, you must be planting crops. Most people who aren't baiting were just hunting, things like funnels, trails, etc.
> 
> Very few Michigan hunters are sitting over a food plot and my guess is even fewer are successful.


What is this obsession with food plots indeed. What has caused the explosion in popularity? Could it be that everyone has a sudden interest in watching and feeding animals and birds? It's obvious, with the ban in place it makes it easy to draw and hold deer for the landowner. Most just wont admit it. The popularity will continue to climb as long as the ban is in place making public land tougher to hunt wherever private land is nearby. The new technique will be hunting the property lines.


----------



## Pinefarm

What sudden explosion? Go look at the habitat forum last spring. The traffic is still very light.
Out of all the deer hunters you personally know, how many use plots? I can think of 2.


----------



## Justin

I know 5 and I don't know many private land hunters. None of those frequent this site.


----------



## .480

At least 85% of the hunters I know use either food plots or hunt on farm fields.

And 100% of these hunters are also dumping BAIT in the food plots as well.

I am in the U.P. so this is still legal.

I am wondering a lot about this site, Pinefarm is labeled as a "moderator"
Why is such a one sided anti-baiter allowed to be called a moderator?

I would think that a moderator should be a neutral party that just monitors the site to keep things civil. Not someone who continually stirs the pot to push their own agenda.

As to the topic of this thread: No-one has proven to me that baiting is going to spread disease any more then apple trees, food plots, or any of these small little watering holes most guys are putting in.


----------



## bowhunter426

.480 said:


> As to the topic of this thread: No-one has proven to me that baiting is going to spread disease any more then apple trees, food plots, or any of these small little watering holes most guys are putting in.


Does rapid onset fatal lead poisoning count? 

I fail to see how properly applying bait is any different that acorns falling out of a tree. With proper size and distribution it is no different.


----------



## feedinggrounds

I agree Pinefarm is not an impartial moderator Dan


----------



## Munsterlndr

Nope, the bigger font did not help, the stupidity of the analogy and the level of hypocrisy remains unchanged. :lol:


----------



## William H Bonney

Munsterlndr said:


> Nope, the bigger font did not help, the stupidity of the analogy and the level of hypocrisy remains unchanged. :lol:


:lol:


----------



## mcfish

Munsterlndr said:


> Nope, the bigger font did not help, the stupidity of the analogy and the level of hypocrisy remains unchanged. :lol:


Almost as stupid as the supposed analogy of speeding and baiting.


----------



## Tom (mich)

mcfish said:


> Almost as stupid as the supposed analogy of speeding and baiting.


One must recognize that there are a handful of certainties on Michigan Sportsman, much like the sun rising each day. Some examples include:

1. If the subject is race relations, it is a certainty that a poster will eventually preface a comment with "I'm not a racist, I have (insert minority here) friends...."

2. If the subject is PETA, it is a certainty that a poster will eventually give us the tired and decidedly unfunny comment "People Eating Tasty Animals".

3. If the subject is baiting deer, it is a certainty that someone will eventually make the illogical comparison to speeding - i.e. "if you speed, you are no better than the poachers who bait". In psychological terms, it's known as deflection.


----------



## yoopertoo

Tom (mich) said:


> One must recognize that there are a handful of certainties on Michigan Sportsman, much like the sun rising each day. Some examples include:
> 
> 1. If the subject is race relations, it is a certainty that a poster will eventually preface a comment with "I'm not a racist, I have (insert minority here) friends...."
> 
> 2. If the subject is PETA, it is a certainty that a poster will eventually give us the tired and decidedly unfunny comment "People Eating Tasty Animals".
> 
> 3. If the subject is baiting deer, it is a certainty that someone will eventually make the illogical comparison to speeding - i.e. "if you speed, you are no better than the poachers who bait". In psychological terms, it's known as deflection.


No on demonstrated that the analogy was illogical. Just because you have scofflaws does not make it automatically reasonable to ban an activity altogether. Anti baiting folks often use the fact that many people did not comply with previous baiting laws therefore a new law banning baiting altogether is a logical follow on. This is called a non-sequitur in the world of logic.


----------



## Munsterlndr

mcfish said:


> Almost as stupid as the supposed analogy of speeding and baiting.


That would be a comparison, not an analogy. 

Btw, how are you coming along with those pics showing dozens of deer feeding at legally sized bait piles, still waiting.........


----------



## MIoutdoorsjunkie

I want to start by saying that I am not be as educated on the baiting subject as others that have posted ob this thread. Having said that, I wonder why it is still legal to bait in the U.P? Based on my understanding their have been numerous cases of CWD found in northern wisconsin over the past few years. There is no boundry between the U.P and Wisconsin.... So why no baiting ban in the U.P? 

My first thought is money... Revenue generated for the DNRE from baiting fines in the L.P is signifficant enough to justify the ban....regardless of what hunters LP think. My thinking is that if those that enact such bans were concerned with the spreading of disease "in" the MI deer herd or disease spreading "to" the MI deer herd, there would be a statewide ban in place not just a ban for the LP. 


Just my $0.02
Jeff


----------



## onenationhere

MIoutdoorsjunkie said:


> I want to start by saying that I am not be as educated on the baiting subject as others that have posted ob this thread. Having said that, I wonder why it is still legal to bait in the U.P? Based on my understanding their have been numerous cases of CWD found in northern wisconsin over the past few years. There is no boundry between the U.P and Wisconsin.... So why no baiting ban in the U.P?
> 
> My first thought is money... Revenue generated for the DNRE from baiting fines in the L.P is signifficant enough to justify the ban....regardless of what hunters LP think. My thinking is that if those that enact such bans were concerned with the spreading of disease "in" the MI deer herd or disease spreading "to" the MI deer herd, there would be a statewide ban in place not just a ban for the LP.
> 
> 
> Just my $0.02
> Jeff


The state does not generate a lot of money from baiting fines,that is what I have been told anyway.I imagine that it is costing us millions to enforce as it is not cheap sending airplanes and helicopters up to look for bait piles.The ban in the LP has to do with an action plan that was drafted in the event that CWD was found in Michigan.If they had suspected a deer in the Upper had CWD then it would have been banned there instead of the Lower.The ban targets the peninsula that it was found in.It is a pretty stupid plan if you ask me,a bag of apples is not worth the millions that this is going to cost us.I say us because it will trickle down to guys like you and me.We will end up paying for the DNR helicopter rides.All of this trouble for a phantom disease,there was not confirmation as far as I know that stated conclusively that the deer in Kent county had CWD.So you are right to be confused about the ban,I wondered also about why it is still legal in the Upper.


----------



## bone

the baiting ban is concetrating the herd more in certain areas with better natural or un natural food sources INCREASING the risk of disease

more deer in 1 location=higher probability of contact


----------



## Munsterlndr

MIoutdoorsjunkie said:


> I want to start by saying that I am not be as educated on the baiting subject as others that have posted ob this thread. Having said that, I wonder why it is still legal to bait in the U.P? Based on my understanding their have been numerous cases of CWD found in northern wisconsin over the past few years. There is no boundry between the U.P and Wisconsin.... So why no baiting ban in the U.P?
> 
> My first thought is money... Revenue generated for the DNRE from baiting fines in the L.P is signifficant enough to justify the ban....regardless of what hunters LP think. My thinking is that if those that enact such bans were concerned with the spreading of disease "in" the MI deer herd or disease spreading "to" the MI deer herd, there would be a statewide ban in place not just a ban for the LP.
> 
> Just my $0.02
> Jeff


You are incorrect, there has been no CWD found in Northern Wisconsin, the Wisconsin CWD zone is in the Southern portion of the state. There was recently a deer that tested positive in a preliminary test, in the Northern part of Wisconsin (within 50 miles of the Michigan border), which would have triggered an automatic interim ban on UP baiting (per the WCA) but further testing at the Federal USDA lab in Ames, Iowa, indicated that the initial test was a false positive and that the deer did not, in fact, have CWD.

To your second point, the DNR gets very little of the revenue resulting from tickets, whether they are baiting, poaching, littering, regardless. The fines go to the County wherever the prosecution takes place. Law Enforcement is not a money maker for the DNR.


----------



## zfishman

Baiting is still legal in the UP because CWD has NOT been found within 50 miles of the border. Recently preliminary tests on a deer within 50 miles of the Mi. border came back positive, but further testing came back negative, so baiting is still legal.


----------



## mcfish

Munsterlndr said:


> That would be a comparison, not an analogy.
> 
> Btw, how are you coming along with those pics showing dozens of deer feeding at legally sized bait piles, still waiting.........


You've got me in the wordsmith category Mun. As for posting pics, I don't want to spend that much time inside on the computer perusing sites to find and post them. The outdoors is a wonderful place to be, give it a try. Outwitting ******** like me on the internet isn't all that.


----------



## hunt-n-fool

Pinefarm said:


> But why? Seems baiting isn't a "needed" factor in controlling herds in the north.
> So why bring it back? So those hunting less desireable land can peel deer away from more desireable land?
> Sounds like something the liberals would love! :lol:
> Maybe raise taxes on those who hunt where the deer want to be without bait?
> *There has been no legit reason ever listed here to bring baiting back, in over 2 years,* other than something like "deer busing" in some attempt to make things fair if some choose to hunt land that deer otherwise don't spend much time on.


well, sparky, here is a legit reason, hunter numbers are dropping, it would assist that issue !


----------



## answerguy8

Justin said:


> Have you personally witnessed this? I've hunted state land most of my life and have never seen this. I'm sure it happened but it happens without bait too. I used piles as a handy way to see where others were sitting and moved away.


I sure have. The worst case was heading to deer camp for the second weekend I decided to pull over and hunt the last couple of daylight hours cause I wouldn't make camp before dark. I parked and wander around looking for deer sign instead I found a hunter over his bait. He told me to get the He!! out of here this was his spot. I told him don't worry I won't be anywhere near him. I headed off in another direction and sat til dark. Went back to my truck and it wouldn't start. It took me a long time to realize that he had reached up under the wheel well, grabbed some wires and disabled my vehicle. It was a bitter cold night that night, not outside the realm of possibility that I might have frozen to death if I hadn't figured out what happened.


----------



## MIoutdoorsjunkie

Thanks for clearing that up guys... All hearsay.... That is why I figured I would ask. Now I am clear. 

Appreciate it. 
Jeff


----------



## answerguy8

MIoutdoorsjunkie said:


> My first thought is money... Revenue generated for the DNRE from baiting fines in the L.P is signifficant enough to justify the ban....regardless of what hunters LP think.
> 
> Just my $0.02
> Jeff


As I understand it the fines collected don't go to the DNR but directly to the state.


----------



## Justin

answerguy8 said:


> I sure have. The worst case was heading to deer camp for the second weekend I decided to pull over and hunt the last couple of daylight hours cause I wouldn't make camp before dark. I parked and wander around looking for deer sign instead I found a hunter over his bait. He told me to get the He!! out of here this was his spot. I told him don't worry I won't be anywhere near him. I headed off in another direction and sat til dark. Went back to my truck and it wouldn't start. It took me a long time to realize that he had reached up under the wheel well, grabbed some wires and disabled my vehicle. It was a bitter cold night that night, not outside the realm of possibility that I might have frozen to death if I hadn't figured out what happened.


I doubt it had anything to do with the bait. More to do with disturbing his hunt.


----------



## answerguy8

Justin said:


> I doubt it had anything to do with the bait. More to do with disturbing his hunt.


There was more to the conversation, along the lines of "I've been baiting this spot since October 1st" or some such.


----------



## Justin

answerguy8 said:


> There was more to the conversation, along the lines of "I've been baiting this spot since October 1st" or some such.


While bait may have been the problem in your case, I've had the same conversations with guys over un-baited spots they claimed to have hunted for years.


----------



## Justin

All I'm trying to say is that you will find guys like that once in a while. They will lay claim to a spot for any number of reasons.


----------

