Michigan Votes Forum

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.

Why didn't Michigan look at Wisconsin's real life experience?

Because our natural resources, including wildlife, are being managed to meet mandates of the UN Biodiversity Treaty, which Clinton signed, but the federal legislature never ratified.  

Through 'Memorandums of Understanding' with various federal and state government agencies, the Nature Conservancy and other nongovernment eco-environmental conservation organizations, some of them partnered with the UN World Conservation Union (ICUN), are calling the shots to ensure that the UN Biodiversity Treaty mandates are followed. That's why all the 'rewilding' is going on - why wolves, cougar, and other carnivorous predators, all sorts of species, are purposely being 'reintroduced' in the state. That's why the MI-DNR has instituted a state 'ecosystem management' program that is to compliment a regional ecosystem management endeavor that involves several states and parts of Canada all around the Great Lakes.

Several years ago, the Michigan Chapter of the Nature Conservancy's U.P. (of Michigan) Conservation Plan was posted online, but after attention was called to it, the posting was pulled.  Fortunately, copies of the plan were printed before that happened, enough so that all members of the NRC were sent copies when they were evaluating the merits of a UP-wide QDM mandate.  A copy of that plan has also been preserved on page 2 of the U.P. Patriots'  April, 2005 newsletter.  A synopsis of it follows on page 3.  You can fiind that newsletter at this link:

http://yoopscoop.com/index_files/page0001.html

Eco-enviromental conservation organizations consider mankind and human activities a threat to ecosystem health.  Do you recall Natural Resource Commissioner Mary Brown's comment about needing to assess the damage hunters do to the habitat when they drag deer out of the woods?  In the eco-nuts' mind, that's one of the threats outdoor sportsmen pose, and the more sportsmen who can be turned off to hunting, the better.  QDM Association based antler restriction programs thoughout the state have been a part of that, as has the deer baiting/feeding issue. 

As more hunters become disgruntled and quit buying licenses and paying fees, funding for MI-DNR programs is jeopardized.  Reducing state deer herd populations because of the negative impact they have on the habitat of other species in an ecosystem has also caused hunters to drop away and therefore reduced MI-DNR funding. 

Knowing this, one of the Nature Conservancy-Michigan Chapter's "forest managment strategies' is listed as beiing willing to work 'with the legislature and state department of Natural Resources to change funding for deer licenses so that reduction in deer herd size does not economically impact the DNR'.  Former MI Natural Resources Commissioner William Parfet was working to have funding come from a private foundation (name not disclosed), and when he let that cat out of the bag at an NRC finance committee meeting, it wasn't long before he bowed out of the NRC. 

The claim that one privately owned three-year old doe fenced in at a breeding farm in Kent County, Michigan was infected with Chronic Wasting Disease, does not make for a state-wide CWD pandemic, but it sure does allow the MI-DNR to continue its charade.  

Incidently, the National Wildlife Federation (NWF) is listed as one of the IUCN partnering organizations. The NWF allows only one conservation organization in each state to be one of its affiliate members.  Do you know which one that would be in Michigan?  I do, and along with that outfit being part of the Timberwolf Alliance, as well as the NWF, it's part of the reason why I dropped my membership with that state outfit, as well as with the local sportsmen's club that mandated part of my dues be sent to support it.

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.

Cj Williams:

The claim that one privately owned three-year old doe fenced in at a breeding farm in Kent County, Michigan was infected with Chronic Wasting Disease, does not make for a state-wide CWD pandemic, but it sure does allow the MI-DNR to continue its charade.  

You are quite right in this statement cj, but every pandemic must have a start somewhere. This may very well not be the starting point, but not baiting deer is a small price to pay for protecting our deer herd, and thereby protecting our hunting. I really feel it is better to error on the side of caution rather than take a chance on this devastating disease taking hold here in Michigan. The organizations supporting the science, those in the CWD Alliance, give me confidence this is the right way to go for now.

This is a very interesting discussion concerning baiting and hunting. It has been going on for many years and good to see casual discussion concerning it. I was at a meeting in I believe it was 2001 when the MDNR stated that if there was "any" case of CWD in Lower Michigan all baiting in lower MIchigan would be banned. If it showed up in the U.P. it would be banned there. Well it happened to work out that way.

I personally feel that there is more to this ban than what most are seeing. There is an attempt by manufacturers and lazy people to get crossbows installed in Michigan, especially the early archery season in the month of October. The NRC is working on 3 proposals now concerning the cross bow in Michigan. I feel that some of the bait ban decision has to do with what they know concerning hunting pressure on Michigan's deer herd if cross bows are introduced. That isnt their only reason to maintaining the ban, but I feel it does have some thing to do with their decision. As far as Mike Lahti I have no idea why he would suggest legislation out side his relm. He represents the U.P. where baiting remains legal.

Just my 2 cents..

AL T

 Crossbows are for lazy people?  Who knew????   Something reeks of MBHA and even HSUS here, either you're trying to fly under the radar, or your Al T imeter is off.

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who says crossbows should be treated differently than regular bows is either naive or a tool.  Join the NRA, and pay attention to Uncle Ted, or prepared to be marginalized.

 Anyone looked at golf equipment lately?  It doesn't look anything like it did just a couple years ago.  Embrace change, but make sure that change is positive for the hunters, not the anti-hunting, anti-crossbow, anti-everything legislators.

 so, jman, why didn't the d.n.r. stop baiting when tuberculosis first showed up in our deer herd?

it's transmitted the same way, and it's already statewide.

oh... i'm sorry, they couldn't be bothered for THAT epidemic.

but let ONE DEER show up with the disease of the month, even one deer in a closed pen, and voila'. instant closure.

I was instantly suspicious when the DNR went from a 'temporary' Ban to a permanent Ban before the season even started.  They had no new data, if they ever really had any at all.  To me it showed that facts don't matter and they had their minds made up before hand.  

Imagine that, the DNR having their mind made up beforehand, regardless of data. 

Uplander:

I was instantly suspicious when the DNR went from a 'temporary' Ban to a permanent Ban before the season even started.  They had no new data, if they ever really had any at all.  To me it showed that facts don't matter and they had their minds made up before hand.  

You quite obviously have not studied this issue in anything resembling depth.  If you really do respect facts then you might change your mind on the baiting issue.  

If you had done even the least amount of study, you would know that the decision was set out in the DNR's CWD response plan adopted by the Natural Resources Commission in 2002.  That was six full years prior to discovery of the first (and so far only -- thankfully) infected deer in the state.  Discovery of an infected animal kicked the plan into action.  That is how preparedness plans are supposed to work.  

 so, insane...

was the preparedness plan to TEMPORARILY ban feeding or PERMANENTLY ban feeding?

they have done both with the same information.

doesn't the plan cover the contingency of ONLY ONE CASE BEING FOUND?

obviously not.

so, it was the PLAN to ban feeding completely and forever from the beginning. sounds pretty ANTI-HUNTING to me.

cjhsa:

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who says crossbows should be treated differently than regular bows is either naive or a tool.  Join the NRA, and pay attention to Uncle Ted, or prepared to be marginalized.

Note that the Michigan Bow Hunters Association and Michigan United Conservation Clubs endorses changes in bowhunting eligibility for disabled persons adopted by the Michigan Natural Resources Commission in July 2008. The changes hardly open the door all the way to crossbow use.

These groups hardly are anti-hunter or anti-hunting.

With all do respect to his fan base, I also note that The Nooge hardly speaks for all hunters in Michigan, by a long shot.  Many sportsmen I know are quite embarrassed by "Uncle Ted."

SaneMichigander:

cjhsa:

Anyone, and I mean anyone, who says crossbows should be treated differently than regular bows is either naive or a tool.  Join the NRA, and pay attention to Uncle Ted, or prepared to be marginalized.

 

Note that the Michigan Bow Hunters Association and Michigan United Conservation Clubs endorses changes in bowhunting eligibility for disabled persons adopted by the Michigan Natural Resources Commission in July 2008. The changes hardly open the door all the way to crossbow use.

 

These groups hardly are anti-hunter or anti-hunting.

 

With all do respect to his fan base, I also note that The Nooge hardly speaks for all hunters in Michigan, by a long shot.  Many sportsmen I know are quite embarrassed by "Uncle Ted." 

 so why should crossbows be treated differently than long bows? both are equally lethal, and both have the same drawbacks.

could it be a case of 'if you can't ban hunting, ban what they hunt with'?

'Uncle Ted' is occasionally rude, sometimes abrasive, and has been known to be obnoxious a time or two. but he is also right. and that riles you up more than anything.

Please don't feed the Trolls.

 then all you get are starving trolls...

nothing else.

if you want QUIET trolls... organize a hunt.

Good point.  17 HMR is good for varmints.

Wow, I have seen some nasty go arounds on these forums for some time but thought this issue would be not quite so confrontational.

cjha, I am thinking that you feel that sportspersons in our state can not present their personal feelings on an issue without it be misconstrewed as an organizational agenda. I assure you my feelings about cross bows are mine and the feelings of 5 generations of bow hunters in my family and not that of organizational interest. I do belong to a bow hunting organization and have for years and I did to allow for me to play my part in the protection of bow hunting. I said "bow hunting" not crossbow hunting. My personal feelings of crossbows or other issues are mine as I stated so you can speak reek and your uncle Ted at any time. I will not deprive you of that opportunity. If I were to say you sound like a TNWB or what ever his org. is called, and are speaking their policy wouldnt that take away your opportunity to voice your individual opinion. I am not an organization basher and will not succumb to the challenge.

I do not consider the crossbow archery equipment. There is very little relationship to each other. The MDNR does not consider it archery equipment either. If you read the definition of a crossbow in the Michigan Conservation Order you will see how they define it. If you look in the Order and see what they related the crossbow with, including spears, poison, pitfalls, drugs you will see what an very large group of people feel about them. I use the word lazy due to my knowledge as a firearm instructor, archery instructor etc. for many years. I personally feel that there is not one able bodied person that can not shoot a bow and arrow with practise and become skillfull with them. It takes no skill to shoot a crossbow and that is my comparison. I would think you would have more knowledge of sportsmenship to place any of our sportspersons organizations in the catagory with anti-hunters. Most bow hunting organizations are distribution points for U.S.S.A. who are out there defending your priviledges to hunt and fish including MBH. As far as the NRA I am a member and they represent me as a user of the firearm not archery. I have known Nugent for some years as well. He has never represented me as a bow hunter. I have over 50 years in the woods with a bow and arrow. My experience is my guide and mentor.

This discussion is about the deer feeding and baiting issues. I feel that the NRC will restrict the use of bait due to the pressure received to introduce the crossbow and they realize the efficiency of baiting and will added tools of the hunt, this could be detrimental to the welfare of Michigans deer herd. That is my personal opinion and not that of any organization or organizational involvement. I attended the meetings that led to the policy on CWD and do understand what it is all about and why it was implemented. It appears rather extreme for one deer that was a captive animal and that is how it started in Wisconson, from caged animals.

 you might need something bigger caliber.  45-100 sharps long rifle leaps immediately to mind. thousand yard troll hunting is a lot more sporting.

Too many words dude Al T.  You give yourself away.  You state "I do not consider crossbows to be archery equipment".  Well, guess what, I dont consider you an asset in the hunting column, either.  And until you can stop being divisive, consider yourself marginalized.

Al T:

It appears rather extreme for one deer that was a captive animal and that is how it started in Wisconson, from caged animals.

Good point Al T. If Wisconsin had it to do over, maybe they would have immediately banned all baiting.

 wisconsin allows baiting, michigan allows baiting, they both think it's a reasonable and ethical way to hunt. what is your problem with baiting?

what do you know that the wildlife management agencies of two states (more actually) doesn't? are your ethics purer than theirs? are they somehow less informed than you?

if snap decisions based on anti-hunting paranoia are the norm for legislators these days, imagine what carnage that paranoia could bring about for human based decisions. someone brought up that anti-hunting opinions are very similar to racial and sexual discrimination. decisions effecting other people based on a particular person's prejudices and life choices. legislators are not allowed the luxury of introducing their prejudices and discriminations into the laws they write, they are expected to write good laws, fair laws, and if that is not possible, not to write any laws at all.

uber-liberal:

 wisconsin allows baiting, michigan allows baiting, they both think it's a reasonable and ethical way to hunt. what is your problem with baiting?

1 - I believe hunting deer over bait is unsporting.  That is how I was raised and have lived as an adult.  The fact that something is "legal" does not mean it is ethical.  I am not persuaded that Michigan's (or Wisconsin's) professional wildlife managers see baiting as ethical, either; professionals tend to duck the ethical debate, and concentrate on the biological issues that baiting raises.  (Twenty-two states allow hunting deer over bait; 28 do not.  Obviously, there is something short of unanimous agreement that hunting deer over bait is legal and ethical.) 

2 - Professional scientists tell us that baiting significantly increases the risk that diseases like CWD and BTb will be transmitted among deer and elk.  I also was raised and have lived as an adult to understand that the hunter's ethic requires one to be concerned about the welfare of the herd, to ensure the future of the sport.  

I support this legislation because I believe it gives Michigan's DNR wildlife and game managers a necessary tool to carry out their charge of protecting he health of the state's deer and elk populations.

SaneMichigander:

uber-liberal:

 wisconsin allows baiting, michigan allows baiting, they both think it's a reasonable and ethical way to hunt. what is your problem with baiting?

1 - I believe hunting deer over bait is unsporting.  That is how I was raised and have lived as an adult.  The fact that something is "legal" does not mean it is ethical.  I am not persuaded that Michigan's (or Wisconsin's) professional wildlife managers see baiting as ethical, either; professionals tend to duck the ethical debate, and concentrate on the biological issues that baiting raises.  (Twenty-states allow hunting deer over bait; 28 do not.  Obviously, there is something short of unanimous agreement that hunting deer over bait is legal and ethical.) [how do twenty states full of sportsmen run so afoul of your ethics? there must be some debate over whether or not it is, or is not ethical. personally, i have much more success hunting over my small pond fed by a stream on my property. is it ethical to shoot a deer while it's trying to get a drink? we could debate that forever. but i have no problem with it. i do not hunt strictly for sport. i eat what i shoot. we look to our wildlife management department to give us guidance on legality AND ethics. the way you speak, our d.n.r. has created a state full of slob hunters. i have to disagree.]

2 - Professional scientists tell us that baiting significantly increases the risk that diseases like CWD and BTb will be transmitted among deer and elk.  I also was raised and have lived as an adult to understand that the hunter's ethic requires one to be concerned about the welfare of the herd, to ensure the future of the sport.  [so was i, but i was also raised to believe that you use what works. obviously, baiting works here or it would not be legal. i'm sure that those same professional scientists gave the same information to us, and the twenty other states that allow hunting over bait, and to the twenty eight states that don't. i wonder if the hunters in those states had any input into the legislation?]

I support this legislation because I believe it gives Michigan's DNR wildlife and game managers a necessary tool to carry out their charge of protecting he health of the state's deer and elk populations. [it also gives them the tools to take away the right to hunt. it seems that their knee-jerk reaction, and knee-jerk escalation is out of proportion to the risk involved. one can only read that there are other motives involved than the health of the herd.]

 

 

 i do have a question for you, sane.

how do you hunt? do you sit in a treestand? do you walk through the woods? do you drive the deer with beaters? do you use artificial and natural scent attractants or maskers? the reason i ask these questions is that you mentioned that hunting over bait is unethical. i'm just curious as to how you apply these ethics to the hunting situation.

i've already told you how i hunt, and am looking forward to your answer on this question.

I'm not a hunter, but I use bait when I fish.  Is that unethical?  To be "fair," wouldn't it be more sporting to don a wet suit and only eat fish that I can grab?

I understand the concern over food plots, which tend to make deer congregate, and it is that congraegating that can transmit disease.  But again, what about a hunter who just tosses some acorns around his tree stand to make the deer stand still long enough for a shot?

I see this less as ethics and more as snobbery; the archery people think they're somehow better than the firearm... or crossbow... hunters, yet their goals are the same: to bag venison.  Does archery with a bow take more skill than with a firearm or crossbow?  I'm unconvinced, since there are now day-glo sights that are every bit as impressive as anything attached to a rifle.  Then there are accessories to quiet the bow, and lighted nocks (Luminok) to lead a hunter to the kill.  Are these unethical, too?  Or are they just efficient?  What about fish finders?

Granted, if you're out for a challenge, then tracking deer on the ground with nothing but a bow will indeed up the ante.  If you're interested in EATING, though, then you simply want to get the job done.  Most of the sportsmen I know fall somewhere in-between; they want the experience of being out in the woods and the thrill of the hunt, but they have jobs back home and don't want to spend their entire weekend shivering in a stand or blind.  Considering the last estimates, the deer herd in Michigan isn't in any jeopardy and, in some urban areas, is actually out of control!  So let's just agree that the tools and methods currently employed are a matter of preference -- one isn't "evil" or more or less ethical than any other -- and that the DNR should be solely concerned with sound science, which I don't see this current ban being connected with.

One last thought: I hear my non-hunting friends yapping all the time about hunters wounding animals and "not giving a s..." about tracking them down and ending their suffering.  Yet if hunters are unable to lay down at least a tiny bit of corn or other attractant, won't this be happening even MORE?  And won't this give the anti-hunting nuts even more ammo to attack hunting rights?  I think we've got enough problems without fighting amongst ourselves.  You don't see such infighting among the HSUS and PETA people!  We can agree to disagree which kind of hunting we prefer, and even distasteful, but we can't allow the antis to win by forfeit.  Smoking disgusts me, too, and I feel it's a stupid thing to do, but I DO NOT want to outlaw it for adults who make the choice to smoke.  That is what FREEDOM is all about.

Thanks for the eyeball time...

 thanks stew.

i've heard many bad things about peta and the way it treats 'adoptable' animals. i guess were still stuck waiting for an answer.

uber-liberal:

 wisconsin allows baiting, michigan allows baiting, they both think it's a reasonable and ethical way to hunt. what is your problem with baiting?

I'm not sure your replying to my post, but if you are, I thought I made myself quite clear previously. I don't have a problem with baiting. None. Zip. Nota. Matter of fact, that is how I have hunted for years. Somehow this discussion has turned into an ethical debate over baiting. That's really not the point, although some like to see conspiracy in everything.

The point, at least in my view, is disease, in particular, CWD. The science says banning baiting is a prudent way to reduce the risk of this disease taking hold here in Michigan. The organizations in the CWD Alliance agree with that assesment. I trust in that science, and thus that decision. Therefore, to protect our deer herd for the future enjoyment of hunters, and the tourist dollars it brings to our state, I support extending the ban on baiting.

 JM, I would support the ban too, except for a few things:

Only one deer supposedly was found with CWD.

None of the other deer at the same facility had any sign of CWD, even post mortem tests concluded.

The supposedly CWD positive deer was completely destroyed so that no further tests can be run.

The DNR then accused the rancher's son of improper taxidermy, a smokescreen.

No wild deer in the hot zone or anywhere else, as far as we know, has tested positive.

The ban was announced just a few days before the opener of bow season, angering many hunters, farmers, and retailers.   The poor timing of this indicates to me and many others that it was done intentionally to anger the hunting community, something that antis would very much enjoy.

Something stinks about this whole thing.  The more you examine it, the worse the stench becomes.

I acknowledge your concerns cj. But I don't see the "antis" hiding in the brush on this. I agree with you that a total ban on baiting seems an overeaction considering the circumstances of the single case. But if this disease took hold here in Michigan, it would ruin our hunting for years to come. Again,erring on the side of caution, for now, is prudent.

 I disagree.  I think it is part of nature and natural selection.  I believe there are only two types of CWD zones.  Those where CWD has been found, and those where it has not yet been found.  Deer are social animals.  They lick each other because they can.  The bait ban only makes sense if you approach it from the antis point of view.  That directive was clearly written into the NRC's guidelines by someone without the hunter's interest at heart. 

cjhsa:

That directive was clearly written into the NRC's guidelines by someone without the hunter's interest at heart.

and that, cj, is proof positive of the most dangerous thing in michigan. a politician who intentionally usurps the rights of the citizens of this state.

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.