Michigan Votes Forum

crazycajun:

 if it weren't for the Boone and Crockett record book, deer management would be about numbers to feed people, and not maintaining habitat to raise the healthiest animals possible.

So now you are back to your old tactic of trying to change the topic.

Of course, your statement also is another made-up crock.  Organizations like the Boone & Crockett Club lobbied hard for regulations that would quell the slaughter of deer for market and meat, so there would be adequate populations of deer for satisfactory sport hunting. As game management practices took hold and evolved, and knowledge grew, general health of the herd became an obviously vital component of the big scheme, whether it related to disease, habitat or harvest. You simply cannot separate the health issue out and throw it away as being of no consequence and claim to be an ethical sportsman.

That, in fact, is the point here.  This legislation proposes to make sure the Department of Natural Resources -- and its professional game management biologists -- is equipped with the regulatory tools needed to protect the health of Michigan's deer herd.  It makes no conservation sense to oppose such legislation.      

 what conservation sense does it make to SUPPORT this legislation?

we ALREADY HAVE conservation.

this bill doesn't provide conservation.

this bill is about reducing the amount of people who hunt and controlling the way they hunt. pure and simple.

It makes no sense to support any further legislation at all, unless it involves the impeachment Obama, Granholm, and all the other socio-commies the least common denominators have voted into office.

I bet you voted against the dove hunt too, right insane?

cjhsa:

I bet you voted against the dove hunt too, right insane?

You lose.

crazycajun:

this bill is about reducing the amount of people who hunt and controlling the way they hunt. pure and simple.

That is a significantly bizarre comment.  

Explain how this bill is intended to reduce the number of people who hunt.

Actually, this bill is about providing professional wildlife managers in Michigan the regulatory tools they need in order to protect the health of the Michigan deer herd.  Pure and simple.  That is why I support it.

I see this issue in much the same light as the global warming skeptics; I think the science behind the legislation is shaky.  A single incident does not an epidemic make, nor does it make food plots breeding grounds for disease any more than a pond or natural food source.  The fact is that disease can spread anywhere deer congregate.  My real concern is how the law will be misused.  For example: for the sake of argument, let's say that the science is sound.  It's a huge difference between maintaining a big food plot and a hunter tossing some C'mere Deer in front of his blind so he can get a clean shot.  Yet the law makes no distinction.

Just my two pennies...

SaneMichigander:

cjhsa:

I bet you voted against the dove hunt too, right insane?

You lose.

 

 I seriously doubt that.  I'm always right.  I thought I was wrong once, but I was  wrong about that.

cjhsa:

SaneMichigander:

cjhsa:

I bet you voted against the dove hunt too, right insane?

You lose.

 

 

 I seriously doubt that.  I'm always right.  I thought I was wrong once, but I was  wrong about that.

 

You now have been wrong twice.  

Chronic Wasting Disease and the Science in support of the Ban on Baiting and Feeding Deer.
Timothy R. Van Deelen Ph.D. Wisconsin DNR Research
Summary
Reliable science provides support for a ban of baiting and feeding of white-tailed deer to reduce disease risks for
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). Peer-reviewed research papers published in reputable scientific journals indicate
the following:

Deer can get CWD by ingesting something contaminated with the disease prion

CWD prions may be shed in *** and saliva

Disease course and symptoms indicate high potential for transmission where deer are concentrated

Evidence from captive situations indicates that deer can get CWD from highly contaminated
environments.

Baiting and Feeding causes unnatural concentration of deer

Reduction of contact through a ban on baiting and feeding is likely very important to eradicating or
containing a CWD outbreak.

Baiting and feeding continues to put Wisconsin's deer herd at risk to other serious diseases
In addition, experts in CWD, wildlife disease and deer nutrition support bans on baiting and feeding as part of a
comprehensive strategy to prevent and/or manage CWD.
Under a baiting and feeding ban, disease outbreaks are more likely to be smaller in scale and more apt to be
contained or eliminated. With the long CWD incubation period and other factors that make discovery of a new
outbreak difficult, an outbreak that is already widespread when detected because of baiting and feeding may not be
able to be contained or eliminated.
This document provides details and explicit links to the supporting science.
Chronic Wasting Disease and the Science behind the Ban on Baiting and Feeding Deer.
Some critics claim that there is no scientific support for the judgment that resulted in the ban. This is simply
untrue. In this document, I review some of the scientific evidence in support of the baiting and feeding ban.
The science in support of the ban on baiting and feeding is strong and comes from a number of diverse scientific
sub-disciplines (veterinary medicine, wildlife ecology, biochemistry, physiology, etc.). Consequently, there is no
single comprehensive study or paper that, by itself, demonstrates the CWD-related effects of baiting and feeding of
wild deer (good or bad). Evaluating the science relative to baiting and feeding requires integration of scientific
evidence from several different sub-disciplines.
The quality of scientific evidence is an issue for some critics who claim that other science or other experts fail to
support the ban. It is also an issue in trying to reach an objective scientific judgment. In keeping with established
scientific practice, I consider articles published in reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific literature to be of the highest
quality. Peer-review insures that articles have been rigorously evaluated and endorsed by qualified specialists. A
secondary level of scientific rigor is the unpublished opinion or unpublished research of recognized experts working
on the topic of interest. An example of this would be the opinion or unpublished research on CWD transmission
from investigators who have established their expertise through peer-reviewed publication on other CWD-related
topics. A very distant third level of quality is the unpublished opinion of recognized experts working on distantly
related topics. Again, scientific expertise is demonstrated by frequent publication in reputable peer-reviewed
scientific journals.
The following is a partial list of scientific evidence that suggests that baiting and feeding of wild deer elevates the
risk of CWD transmission. This list focuses almost entirely on disease risks posed by CWD although other
diseases (e.g. Bovine Tuberculosis) may pose even greater risks and there are many other reasons (e.g.
ecological, social, nutritional) why baiting and feeding deer is inappropriate management. This list is intended to be
explicit in its links to peer-reviewed science. Complete literature citations are included at the end of the document
for readers who want to read the original scientific articles.

CWD is transmitted laterally (live diseased deer infect other deer)
Researchers who have studied CWD epidemics in both captive and free-ranging deer populations have
determined that CWD is both contagious and self-sustaining (meaning that new infections occur fast
enough for CWD to persist or increase over time despite the more rapid deaths of the diseased individuals;

This is only the first page in this report. Go to CWD alliance for further information.

BTW, Boone and Crockett is a member of the CWD alliance.

jmangan:

Chronic Wasting Disease and the Science in support of the Ban on Baiting and Feeding Deer.
Timothy R. Van Deelen Ph.D. Wisconsin DNR Research
Summary
Reliable science provides support for a ban of baiting and feeding of white-tailed deer to reduce disease risks for
Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). Peer-reviewed research papers published in reputable scientific journals indicate
the following:

Deer can get CWD by ingesting something contaminated with the disease prion

<there WAS only ONE contaminated deer. that deer died in a pen without ever contaminating another deer. where is this contamination supposed to come from?>

CWD prions may be shed in *** and saliva

<again, the only sick deer is already dead. how is his saliva going to infect any other deer?>

Disease course and symptoms indicate high potential for transmission where deer are concentrated

<there are no other deer concentrating around the only deer in michigan with the disease.>

Evidence from captive situations indicates that deer can get CWD from highly contaminated
environments.

<one isolated deer does not create a highly contaminated environment.>

Baiting and Feeding causes unnatural concentration of deer

<none of which have the disease. and besides, they do NOT cause UNNATURAL concentrations of deer. cervids are social. they congregate.>

Reduction of contact through a ban on baiting and feeding is likely very important to eradicating or
containing a CWD outbreak.

<only if there is ANOTHER deer with the disease. show us the proof of another sick deer in michigan.>

Baiting and feeding continues to put Wisconsin's deer herd at risk to other serious diseases
In addition, experts in CWD, wildlife disease and deer nutrition support bans on baiting and feeding as part of a
comprehensive strategy to prevent and/or manage CWD.

<we're not talking about WISCONSIN deer, we're talking about MICHIGAN deer. prove OUR deer are sick.>

Under a baiting and feeding ban, disease outbreaks are more likely to be smaller in scale and more apt to be
contained or eliminated. With the long CWD incubation period and other factors that make discovery of a new
outbreak difficult, an outbreak that is already widespread when detected because of baiting and feeding may not be
able to be contained or eliminated.

<all you have to do is prove that the d.n.r. is WRONG and there are more than one sick deer in michigan.>

This document provides details and explicit links to the supporting science.

<again, show us the PROOF of another sick deer in michigan before you extend a ban.>
Chronic Wasting Disease and the Science behind the Ban on Baiting and Feeding Deer.
Some critics claim that there is no scientific support for the judgment that resulted in the ban. This is simply
untrue. In this document, I review some of the scientific evidence in support of the baiting and feeding ban.
The science in support of the ban on baiting and feeding is strong and comes from a number of diverse scientific
sub-disciplines (veterinary medicine, wildlife ecology, biochemistry, physiology, etc.). Consequently, there is no
single comprehensive study or paper that, by itself, demonstrates the CWD-related effects of baiting and feeding of
wild deer (good or bad). Evaluating the science relative to baiting and feeding requires integration of scientific
evidence from several different sub-disciplines.
The quality of scientific evidence is an issue for some critics who claim that other science or other experts fail to
support the ban. It is also an issue in trying to reach an objective scientific judgment. In keeping with established
scientific practice, I consider articles published in reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific literature to be of the highest
quality. Peer-review insures that articles have been rigorously evaluated and endorsed by qualified specialists. A
secondary level of scientific rigor is the unpublished opinion or unpublished research of recognized experts working
on the topic of interest. An example of this would be the opinion or unpublished research on CWD transmission
from investigators who have established their expertise through peer-reviewed publication on other CWD-related
topics. A very distant third level of quality is the unpublished opinion of recognized experts working on distantly
related topics. Again, scientific expertise is demonstrated by frequent publication in reputable peer-reviewed
scientific journals.
The following is a partial list of scientific evidence that suggests that baiting and feeding of wild deer elevates the
risk of CWD transmission. This list focuses almost entirely on disease risks posed by CWD although other
diseases (e.g. Bovine Tuberculosis) may pose even greater risks and there are many other reasons (e.g.
ecological, social, nutritional) why baiting and feeding deer is inappropriate management. This list is intended to be
explicit in its links to peer-reviewed science. Complete literature citations are included at the end of the document
for readers who want to read the original scientific articles.

CWD is transmitted laterally (live diseased deer infect other deer)
Researchers who have studied CWD epidemics in both captive and free-ranging deer populations have
determined that CWD is both contagious and self-sustaining (meaning that new infections occur fast
enough for CWD to persist or increase over time despite the more rapid deaths of the diseased individuals;

 

This is only the first page in this report. Go to CWD alliance for further information.

BTW, Boone and Crockett is a member of the CWD alliance.

Feeling a bit overwhelmed?

 not at all...

i'm still waiting for the glimmer of intelligence to show up from your side of the conversation.

i can already tell it's going to be a LOOOOONNNNNNGGG WAIT.

now. why should we continue the ban on feeding deer when the only way an infected deer can get down here is to either walk from ohio, or swim?

 So why is is then that Wisconsin allows baiting except in certain "hot zones" similar to MI's TB zone?

Why didn't Michigan look at Wisconsin's real life experience and instead rely on a six year old document and knee jerk themselves right in the chin with one knee, and hunters right in the crotch with the other?

Bureaucraps have no soul.

Here's a question for the two of you.

Why don't you call, or write, or email your state representative and ask him these questions? Before you do, I would recommend you do some research though. You don't want to appear like you don't know what your talking about.

 Oh I have and I do.  For some reason my rep thinks this is a CWD issue, instead of a hunter control issue, perhaps due to the huge amount of dollars coming into our state from HSUS in an effort to end hunting here.

It is not the DNR's job to manage hunters, it's their job to manage the resources, yet they focus on the former, and fail at the latter.

From the looks of the deer herd in my area, they've been too successful.

Stu Chisholm:

I see this issue in much the same light as the global warming skeptics; I think the science behind the legislation is shaky.  ...

I don’t think the science in respect to Chronic Wasting Disease and Bovine Tuberculosis in deer and elk herds is “shaky.”  Methodology used to date by wildlife specialists appears to have passed muster as to scientific validity.  However, at this stage the research remains somewhat undeveloped – just what we should expect of research into wildlife diseases that have been on the radar for only 3-4 decades at most.

A single incident does not an epidemic make, nor does it make food plots breeding grounds for disease any more than a pond or natural food source.

Yes, and no. 

A single case does not make an epidemic.  We all can agree on that. 

What it does, though, is make absolutely clear that the disease has occurred in Michigan, which in turn creates a very high probability that the disease remains in Michigan.  Remember, the CWD infected deer in question was found in late August 2008.  The incubation period of CWD is understood to be 18 months or more, so the clock continues to tick on this. 

Luckily, so far, no additional CWD animals were found in Michigan after late August 2008.  The whole purpose of managing this disease (and BTb) is to prevent it from becoming an epidemic. 

I my view it would be grossly irresponsible to wait until the occurrence of diseases like CWD and BTb actually become epidemic in Michigan before doing something to control them and their spread.  The measures taken by the Michigan DNR and Michigan Department of Agriculture to address these potentially devastating diseases have been measured and minimally intrusive on anyone’s sport hunting activities. 

It seems to me the loss of privilege to shoot deer over bait piles, or to photograph or watch deer at feeding stations is a minor thing compared to the harm that would be done to the heard and these activities if CWD and BTb were to get out of control and reach epidemic proportions in Michigan.

The fact is that disease can spread anywhere deer congregate.

Very true, of course.  But when we can eliminate some human-created situations that cause deer to congregate and create additional risk, without material disruption of sport hunting and wildlife viewing activities, then the responsible thing to do is to eliminate those situations and reduce the risks.

My real concern is how the law will be misused.  For example: for the sake of argument, let's say that the science is sound.  It's a huge difference between maintaining a big food plot and a hunter tossing some C'mere Deer in front of his blind so he can get a clean shot.  Yet the law makes no distinction.

First of all, the science does show that bait piles and feeding stations do change the movement and other habitual patterns of deer behavior.  Feed plots can do the same thing, of course, but apparently not in the same way as do bait piles.   

Do you have any examples of how this law has been misused to date?  Real, concrete and documented misuses, please, and not something imagined like a bogeyman.  And please spare us the broad brush claim that saying “no” to hunting deer over bait ans it has been done in Michigan is inherently “abusive.”  I don’t intend to be inflammatory with the “bogeyman” label, but unless there are verified, documented instances of real abuse the fear remains imaginary.

Now, if you are concerned about the lack of distinction between food plots and bait piles, why not seek that clarification in laws and regulations?  That is a far more reasonable approach than obstructing entire efforts to manage these diseases.

In looking at this issue, we see that organizations like the Boone & Crockett Club, Quality Deer Management Association, and Michigan United Conservation Clubs, and the Michigan Farm Bureau supporting the DNR’s deer baiting ban.  These are definitely not anti-hunting organizations.

I live in a western Upper Peninsula winter deer yard area.  Throughout the day many deer travel through my property, singly and in groups. They pause here and there to browse on whatever they can find to fill their hungry bellys, and sometimes they'll bed down for awhile. Some come up onto my porch to eat from the bowl of cat food I put out every day for my in-the-garage mouse patrol, and others congregate under the bird feeder for awhile to scrounge for whatever scraps of seed have been knocked to the ground by the bigger birds. (The smaller ones are more tidy.)

Cjhsa is right - deer lick one another because they can.  Nose-to nose contact doesn't occur only at a little or big bait pile during hunting season.  It occurs all the time, whether it be in my yard, or down the road a ways where loggers are harvesting trees for wood products, or anywhere deer decide to wander.

While the CWD Alliance may serve some noble purposes, the original organizations that formed the Alliance (the Boone & Crockett Club, Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation, and the Mule Deer Foundation) have for years been joined at the hip with the Nature Conservancy through various initiative 'partnerships' throughout the US. 

Since its founding, the Alliance has been joined by several other organizations.  Among them is the Georgia-based Quality Deer Management Association founded by Joe Hamilton, the director of the Nature Conservancy's ACE Basin Program.  At one time, and perhaps to this day, two members of the QDMA board of directors were involved with the 'panther' (mountain lion) reintroduction program in Florida to restore ecosystem biodiversity in that state.

Michigan sportsmen must quit the in-fighting among user groups and work together as a united front to combat other 'stake holder' groups that are often invited to send representatives to sit at a roundtable with the MI-DNR to iron out policy.  We must also unite to combat 'stake holder' lobbying groups that clamor for the attention of our state legislators, and often receive it in the form of unfriendly-to-outdoor-sportsmen legislation. 

Do you really suppose it was a good old boy sportsmen's organization that had Lahti's ear when he proposed HB 4198?

In looking for an organization to join that supports and promotes the best interest of outdoor sportsmen, the vast majoriy of which are conservationists in thought and deed, I suggest that folks check out the national US Sportsmen's Alliance ($25 individual USSA memberships are available), the downstate Michigan United Sportsman's Alliance ( USA - contact Tom Lounsbury at 989-872-2398), and the Upper Michigan U.P. Sportsmen's Alliance (contact: Dale McNamee at 906-786-58i6.

Very well stated C.J.,

I think that the most damaging issue about this feeding ban, especially concerning the longevity of it that Lahti stated in his proposal is that in some areas of the Northern Lower East and West there are very adverse weather conditions. In the east the Bovine has put restrictions on Bovine Tuberculosis even though there is still an enormous amount of baiting for hunting and feeding for survival going on in those areas. The nose to nose breathing was the probable cause of the spread of this disease. I am not sure how many have seen an infected animal, but I have seen more than I wanted to see and just pray that it doesnt spread from the infected areas. I live in Upper Michigan but have traveled extensively across the U.P. and northern Lower to feel these threats.

In Upper Michigan the whitetailed deer herd has survived winter after winter over the years. Some of the old timers that were alive in the early 1900's that I had the opportunity to speak with do not remember widespread deer herds until logging started in greater numbers and the deer herd increased. That was many years before feeding and baiting took place and for some years since those days.

A few years ago the MDNR constructed the Severity Index that determined when organized winter feeding was to take place. I am not sure if that system was used in the lower or not.

Michigan industry has become dependant on baiting deer for hunting purposes as the technique grew in popularity. Baiting was a means to draw the deer from the thousands of acres of private farm land that had no access to Joe hunter. With the halt in baiting deer for hunting there will be the same issues concerning the large amount of private farm land that attracts deer. If it proves that no other CWD cases are within the boundaries of Michigan long period legislation such as suggested would not be warranted. It would make more sense to take input from the biologists and determine that baiting/feeding would be halted for a shorter period of time, but once proven as not a threat could be re-instated.

Today a MDNR newswire was released concerning violations of state impossed restrictions the day after it was imposed. I am not sure why it has been released so long after the fact. But that does no one any good as far as learning the process.

 Unfortunately the person that described this bill for Michiganvotes as "extending the baiting ban" is misinformed.  Representative Lahti is from the Western U.P. where supplemental feeding is important to insuring the health of the deer herd through harsh winters and if you go to michiganlegislature.com you will see that's how it is described there.  In regards to the baiting ban, the bill actually extends the "authority" of the DNR to implement a baiting ban in case of disease or other event that can be interpreted as a possible threat to the deer herd.  The legislature does not have the ability to implement a baiting ban.  That type of decision is left up to the scientist, biologist and other specialist that have the information and knowledge necessary to make that type of decision. 

In regards to the baiting ban, the bill actually extends the "authority" of the DNR to implement a baiting ban in case of disease or other event that can be interpreted as a possible threat to the deer herd.

 it's always had the authority. still has no need for a ban. yet the ban is still on. do they even look at the science?

The DNR needs legislative authority.

Introduced by Rep. Michael Lahti (D) on February 6, 2009, to extend through 2015 a Jan. 1, 2010 sunset on Department of Natural Resources authority to prohibit the feeding of deer and elk.

 why sunset an authority? unless you don't agree with it? to stop deer and elk from getting sick, you would have to stop them from eating.

Under a baiting and feeding ban, disease outbreaks are more likely to be smaller in scale and more apt to be
contained or eliminated. With the long CWD incubation period and other factors that make discovery of a new
outbreak difficult, an outbreak that is already widespread when detected because of baiting and feeding may not be
able to be contained or eliminated.

gypsy:

Under a baiting and feeding ban, disease outbreaks are more likely to be smaller in scale and more apt to be
contained or eliminated. With the long CWD incubation period and other factors that make discovery of a new
outbreak difficult, an outbreak that is already widespread when detected because of baiting and feeding may not be
able to be contained or eliminated.

Why do you keep repeating this post, Gypsy?   Also, what's your source for that information, not that I'm disputing it.  Is this your own opinion that you've written and repeatedly posted, or did you pick it up somewhere?  If you did pluck it from somewhere, where did you do the plucking?

I repeat it because it gives the reasoning behind giving the DNR the authority to ban feeding and baiting deer, and other posters make the argument that if only one deer in Michigan had CWD, there is no reason for the ban. It's source is from the Wisconsin DNR.

Chronic Wasting Disease and the Science in support of the Ban on Baiting and Feeding Deer.
Timothy R. Van Deelen Ph.D. Wisconsin DNR Research

You can pluck it from their website, if you wish.

gypsy:

I repeat it because it gives the reasoning behind giving the DNR the authority to ban feeding and baiting deer, and other posters make the argument that if only one deer in Michigan had CWD, there is no reason for the ban. It's source is from the Wisconsin DNR.

Chronic Wasting Disease and the Science in support of the Ban on Baiting and Feeding Deer.
Timothy R. Van Deelen Ph.D. Wisconsin DNR Research

You can pluck it from their website, if you wish.

 I think you've plucked it enough.  My point has been made as to where you get your information.  Thanks for your honest reply.

Today, my yard is being visited by lots of deer.  They're foraging for food - nose to nose in the same grassy bare spots not covered with snow.  They're munching nose to nose on the tops of trees we've just cut for next years wood stove supply.  Ocassionally a doe will stop to lick the face of her last year's fawn(s).  Perhaps I should stand on my porch and warn them about CWD and let them know they shouldn't be licking one another or dining nose to nose in nature's 'bait pile'.

I understand your point, but I must give more weight to the science that has been done showing that a feeding and baiting ban would lessen the severity and make more controllable an outbreak of CWD. Seems a small price to pay to protect our deer herd here in Michigan.

gypsy:

I understand your point, but I must give more weight to the science that has been done showing that a feeding and baiting ban would lessen the severity and make more controllable an outbreak of CWD. Seems a small price to pay to protect our deer herd here in Michigan.

 I'm sure you must.  Is that 'science' weight based on real time, long-term observation and study or is it based on computer modeling and best guess work? 

Has the 'science' methodolgy you're giving more weight to been conducted in the field, as opposed to behind fences on private game farms, if in fact 'science' methodollogy has been conducted on such game farms?  

 so you want us to ban feeding and baiting for something that hasn't happened because it might happen? that is very scientific of you, but still not a good reason to ban baiting.

Hope for the best, prepare for the worse.

 that is not why you write laws. that is how you usurp rights.

I really can't see how trying to prevent a devasting disease in our deer herd is usurping your rights.

 you and tour scientists did nothing to prevent cervid tuberculosis. why eradicate a disease which no deer have?

Again, my apologies to CJ.

Under a baiting and feeding ban, disease outbreaks are more likely to be smaller in scale and more apt to be
contained or eliminated. With the long CWD incubation period and other factors that make discovery of a new
outbreak difficult, an outbreak that is already widespread when detected because of baiting and feeding may not be
able to be contained or eliminated.

 no sick deer. no ban necessary.

Even if we bought into such a careless way of looking at this potential danger, you're ignoring the fact there was a sick deer in Michigan.

 there are thousands of sick deer in michigan. not one has c.w.d. our wild herd was not exposed to this disease. you missed your chance to 'eradicate' tuberculosis, and you don't even care. why so much concern for what might happen now?

I won't bore you with posting why we should take precautions, you're not reading it obviously.

I didn't have a chance to eradicate TB. I do care.

My concern is because I hunt and enjoy the outdoors.