Michigan Votes Forum

 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. 

Perhaps the information at this link will help to clarify some issues related to the supplemental feeding of deer in the Upper Peninsula during the winter. Last week and over the weekend nighttime tempertures at my place in southern Houghton County ranged as low as 30 degrees below zero.  I'm seeing the effect of that now on some of the younger deer that come into my yard.

 Additionally, it might have been a good thing for a legislator who is more familiar with outdoor sportsmen's issues, as they relate to the state's deer herd population, etc., to have written this bill.

http://www.dailypress.net/page/content.detail/id/509585.html?nav=5006

Crazycajun has an opinion and about HB 4334, HB 4183, HB 4198, and SB 255.

And, that's fine.  That sure is his/our right.

Except he appears to hate everything.  Can everything, that's EVERYTHING about Granholm and government in general be THAT bad?  I'm no fan of Granholm, but when I see nothing but complaints on lots of posts by ONE person, I just ignore the comments made by that person.  When the company whiner starts walking my way, I go the other way.

I share your instincts, value.

gypsy:

I share your instincts, value.

 You two should go into politics (you probably already are), because you sound like our typical elected officials who ignore their constituency.

 i hope they're not elected, cjhsa.

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;

 all this fuss and grief over one dead deer. other infected deer cannot get here unless they walk across the mac or swim.

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.

 very logical, but very unnecessary. infected deer are not here. only one was ever here, and it died in captivity before infecting any other deer. so unless one somehow swims across from wisconsin, or hikes across the bridge, we don't need this law.

bugman:

infected deer are not here. only one was ever here

?

 confused?

No, I'm not.

 so what is the problem? only one infected deer. it died before infecting any other deer. no ban necessary.

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.

 one deer is not an outbreak. no ban is necessary.

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?  

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;
Miller et al 1998, 2000). Supporting evidence comes from observational data (Williams and Young 1992;
Miller et al. 1998, 2000) experimental data, and epidemiological models fit to observed prevalences in freeliving
deer (Miller et al. 2000, Gross and Miller 2001, M. W. Miller unpublished in Williams et al. 2002).
These studies suggest that observed prevalences and rates of spread of CWD in real populations could not
occur without lateral transmission. For example, maternal transmission (doe to fawn) if it occurs, is rare
and cannot explain most cases where epidemiologic data are available( Miller et al. 1998, 2000). Similarly,
indirect lateral transmisson (e.g. from a contaminated environment) may require unusually high levels of
contamination (see below; Williams et al. 2002). Nonetheless, emerging research from Colorado suggests
that indirect lateral transmission from environmental contamination appears to play a role in sustained and
recurrent epidemics (Miller 2002).

Deer can get CWD by ingesting something contaminated with the disease prion
Six mule deer fawns were fed a daily dose of 2g (0.07 ounces) of brain tissue from CWD-positive mule
deer in a tightly controlled experiment for 5 days. Another three were fed the same doses using brain tissue
from CWD-negative mule deer. All deer were held separately in indoor pens that had never before held
deer. The fawns were then killed and necropsied at specific intervals 10 to 80 days post-inoculation. At 42
days and later post inoculation, all fawns dosed with CWD-positive tissue tested positive for CWD prions
in lymph tissues associated with their digestive tracts (Sigurdson et al. 1999). Other transmissible
spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs; Kuru, transmissible mink encephalopathy, bovine spongiform
encephalopathy[BSE]) appear to be transmitted through ingestion of prion-infected tissue as well
(Weissmann et al. 2002). Due to the human health crisis associated with eating BSE-infected beef in
Europe, many other researchers working with TSEs, including CWD (Sigurdson et al 1999, 2001), have
traced the movements of infectious prions of orally-infected animals through the lymph tissue embedded in
the intestinal lining, into nervous tissues associated with the digestive tract (e.g. Maignien et al 1999,
Beekes and McBride 2000, Heggebo et al. 2000, Huang et al. 2002) and eventually to the brain via the
nervous system (Sigurdson et al. 2001, Weissmann et al. 2002). Experimental studies using hamsters have
shown that prions can infect through minor wounds in the skin (Taylor et al. 1996) and that infection
through minor wounds on the tongue was more efficient than infection from ingestion (Bartz et al. 2003).
These studies not only demonstrate that an oral route of infection is possible, but are beginning to provide
specific details about the pathways involved in the movement of infectious prions into the central nervous
system and other organs (Weissmann et al. 2002).

CWD prions may be shed in *** and saliva
Following oral exposure, prions associated with many TSEs (Maignien et al 1999, Huang et al. 2002)
including CWD (Sigurdson et al. 1999; Miller and Williams 2002 and Spraker et al. 2002 cited in Williams
et al. 2002) both accumulate and replicate in the lymph tissues associated with the gastrointestinal tract -
particularly in lymph tissues in contact with the mucosa lining the inside of the intestines (e.g. Peyer's
patches, Weismann et al. 2002). In infected deer, CWD prions also accumulate in the pancreas and various
other glands of the endocrine system (Sigurdson et al 2001). Experiments with hamsters demonstrated that
infectious prions can travel from the brain to the tongue along tongue-associated cranial nerves (Bartz et al.
2003). During digestion, the liver, pancreas, intestinal mucosa, and other glands secrete chemicals needed
for digestion (Robbins 1983) and cells lining the inner surface of the intestine continuously die and slough
off providing potential physical mechanisms for prion shedding into the intestines (others are likely). This
is evidence that infectious prions are likely shed in the *** and saliva (Sigurdson et al. 1999).

Disease course and symptoms indicate high potential for transmission where deer are concentrated
Appearance of CWD symptoms in an infected deer lags initial exposure by a variable time period on the
order of roughly12-24 months or more ([E. S. Williams and M. W. Miller unpublished; E. S. Williams, M.
W. Miller, and T. J. Kreeger unpublished] cited in Williams et al. 2002). Once clinical symptoms are
observed, deer enter a symptomatic phase that may last on average 1-4 months before they invariably die
(Williams et al. 2002). Symptoms are initially subtle but eventually include behaviors likely to contaminate
a site with bodily fluids (e.g. excess urination, excess salivation including drooling and slobbering, and
uncontrollable regurgitation, Williams et al. 2002). Deposition of *** increases with concentration of deer
activity. This is both obvious and intuitive and pellet group counts have been used as an index of deer
density since the 1940's (Bennet et al. 1940). During winter, northern deer defecate about 22 times a day
(Rogers 1987). At least one study (Shaked et al. 2001) has reported detection of an altered form of the
infectious prion in the urine of hamsters, cattle, and humans with TSEs. This altered form, while not as
virulent, produced sub-clinical prion infections following experimental inoculation. Shedding of infectious
prions is likely progressive during the course of disease from infection to death (Williams et al. 2002).
Replication and presence of infectious prions in gut-associated lymph tissue early in the incubation
(Sigurdson et al. 1999, Weismann et al. 2002) and epidemiological modeling (M. W. Miller unpublished
cited in Williams et al. 2002) suggest that shedding precedes the onset of symptoms in both elk and mule
deer.
In this regard, Garner (2001) documented a particularly alarming behavior among deer using frozen feed
piles. Deer used the heat from their mouths and nostrils to thaw and dislodge food such that frozen feed
piles were dented with burrows made from deer noses. He reported that "Throughout the winter multiple
numbers of deer were observed working in and around the same feed piles. I suspect that each deer that
feeds this way at a frozen feed pile leaves much of its own saliva and nasal droppings in the field pile at
which its working"(Garner 2001, p. 46).

Evidence from captive situations indicates that deer can get CWD from highly contaminated
environments.
In addition to direct lateral transmission, researchers suspect that deer can be infected indirectly from
contaminated environments. Contaminated pastures "appear to have served as sources in some CWD
epidemics although these observations are anecdotal and not yet corroborated by controlled studies" (Miller
et al 1998, [M. W. Miller unpublished and E. S. Williams, W. E. Cook, and T. J. Kreeger unpublished]
cited in Williams et al 2002). The potential for transmission from the environment is a function of the
degree of contamination and the resistance of disease prions to chemical breakdown (Williams et al 2001,
2002). Consequently, the highest prevalences recorded for CWD outbreaks have been in captive situations
(Williams and Young 1980, Williams et al. 2002) where because of abnormal concentration, indirect and
direct transmission likely occur together (Williams et al. 2002). At high concentration, the persistence of
the CWD prion in contaminated environments, may be a serious obstacle to disease eradication (Williams
et al. 2002).

Baiting and Feeding causes unnatural concentration of deer
People use baiting and feeding to concentrate deer for enhanced hunter opportunity or viewing. In northern
deer, seasonal concentration in deeryards is a well-known phenomenon (Blouch 1984). However, the
potential for close animal-to-animal contact over a feed pile is fundamentally different than the contact
yarded deer experience while foraging on natural food. In deeryards, deer eat a variety of woody browse
plants and arboreal lichens (Blouch 1984) scattered across a large area. In terms of biomass and nutrition,
the best source of browse and lichens may be litter-fall rather than live plant material growing in the
understory (Ditchkoff and Servello 1998). Food sources in deer yards (litter and understory plants) are
widely distributed over a large area and they are not replaced. Moreover, browse is typically held aloft on
the plant stem such that fecal contamination is less likely. Foraging by wintering deer is an optimization
process. Energy gains associated with eating need to be balanced against energy costs associated with
travel and exposure (Moen 1976). Yarded deer with little or no access to supplemental food maintain
relatively large overlapping home ranges (e.g. 110 acres in Minnesota [Nelson and Mech 1981], 480 acres
in Michigan [Van Deelen 1995], 318 acres in Quebec [Lesage et al. 2000]) suggesting that foraging widely
on a diffuse food source is normal. Garner (2001) monitored 160 radio-collared deer for 2 fall/winter
periods in northern Michigan and documented their behavior over feeding sites using both telemetry and
direct observations. He demonstrated that, relative to natural forage, supplemental feeding caused reduced
home range sizes, increased overlap of home ranges in space and time and dramatic concentrations of
activity around feeding sites.

Reduction of contact through a ban on baiting and feeding is likely very important to eradicating or
containing a CWD outbreak.
Epidemiological models fit to real-world data on CWD outbreaks in mule deer predict that local extinction
of infected deer populations is likely (Gross and Miller 2001). The predicted outcomes of these models are
highly sensitive to input estimates of the amount of contact between infected and susceptible deer meaning
that small reductions in contact rates can dramatically reduce the rate at which prevalence changes during
an epidemic (Gross and Miller 2001). Garner (2001) demonstrated that baiting and feeding was associated
with deer concentration, extensive face-to-face contacts, and increasing overlap of deer home ranges.
White-tailed deer have contacts from social and grooming behaviors apart from contact over baiting and
feeding sites (Marchinton and Hirth 1984) but social groups of whitetails tend to be small during most of
the year (4-6 individuals, Hawkins and Klimstra 1970). Whitetail physiology and behavior are adapted to
selective foraging on nutritious plants (Putman 1988). Moreover, social groups tend to exclude one another
by using different areas or by using shared areas at different times (Mathews 1989, Porter et al. 1991).
Concentration of deer activity over feeding sites increase both direct and indirect contact between groups
by increasing home range and core area overlap and by increasing the amount of time that unrelated deer
feed in close proximity to each other (Garner 2001).
Eliminating these contacts has added significance because CWD is a uniquely difficult disease to manage
and study. There is no treatment and no vaccine. Moreover CWD is difficult to track in a population
because of long incubation periods, subtle early clinical signs, a resistant infectious agent, potential for
environmental contamination and incomplete understanding of transmission mechanisms. These
characteristics make prevention critically important (Williams et al. 2002).

Baiting and feeding continues to put Wisconsin's deer herd at risk to other serious diseases
CWD is not the only infectious disease that threatens Wisconsin's deer herd. One, Bovine Tuberculosis
(TB) warrants special attention because the link to baiting and feeding is clear. TB is an infectious bacterial
disease that is spread from animal to animal through inhalation of infectious aerosols or ingestion of other
infectious body fluids (e.g. saliva). TB bacteria can live outside of an animal for as long as 16 weeks on a
frozen feed pile (Whipple and Palmer 2000 cited in Garner 2001) and Garner (2001) demonstrated that
supplemental food increased close contact among wild deer through a number of mechanisms. Garner
(2001) also demonstrated extensive home range overlap between a TB-positive deer and 15 other radiocollared
deer in northern Michigan. Recent epidemiological research suggests that baiting and feeding of
deer enabled the TB outbreak in Michigan to persist and spread and that declines in TB prevalence were
associated with a ban on baiting and feeding (O'Brien et al. 2002). Current attention is focused on the CWD
outbreak in southwestern Wisconsin. However, should CWD or other infectious disease show up
elsewhere, baiting and feeding are likely to facilitate or enhance an epidemic. TB has been confirmed on 6
captive game farms in Wisconsin and the presence of over 800 captive cervid farms statewide suggests that
the disease risks associated with baiting and feeding are not confined to the known CWD-infected area of
southern Wisconsin.

What do the experts say relative to artificial feeding and CWD and disease transmission?
A discussion of CWD in a review of the scientific literature on captive deer done for The Wildlife Society
(Professional society for wildlife biologists, managers, and researchers; publisher of 3 premier peerreviewed
scientific journals on wildlife ecology and management)...
"Concentration of deer and elk in captivity or in the wild by artificial feeding may increase the likelihood of
transmission between individuals." (DeMarais et al. 2002, p. 6).
In a review of the technical literature on CWD by the top CWD specialists in the world...
"Concentrating deer and elk in captivity or by artificial feed probably increases the likelihood of direct and
indirect transmission between individuals. Transmission via contact between susceptible and infectious
individuals probably requires more than just transient exposure. Thus, minimal fence-line exposure does
not pose excessive risk of transmission; however, prolonged fence-line contact increases the possibility of
transmission" (Williams et al. 2002, p.557).
In a peer-reviewed paper on the epidemiology of Bovine TB by the team of veterinarians, epidemiologists,
and wildlife researchers working to contain the outbreak in Michigan...
"Previous qualitative examinations of the origins of tested deer already suggested that TB positive animals
were more likely to come from the core area. Our new analysis quantifies that risk. The high risk associated
with the core coincides with an area of historically prevalent and intensive baiting and supplemental
feeding of deer - practices that were likely crucial to the establishment of self-sustaining TB in the deer
population" (O'Brein et al. 2002 and citations within).
In oral presentations given to the Texas chapter of the Society of Range Management (Oct. 6 2000) and to
the Southeaster Deer Study Group (Feb. 19 2001) by Dr. Robert D. Brown, Professor and Head of the
Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences at Texas A&M University, Internationally recognized expert
on deer and deer nutrition...
"One of the major points of this paper is the concern over transmission of disease. It amazes me that we
have not done more studies in Texas on disease transmission at food plots and deer feeders, whether they
be for supplementing the deer or for baiting. We know that in 1994 tuberculosis (TB) was first detected in
wild deer in Michigan. It is now in a 5-county area, and has spread to carnivores and dairy herds"... "In
Wyoming and around Yellowstone Park, brucellosis is wide spread among cattle, elk, and bison, the latter
two species being concentrated on feeding grounds in the winter. Likewise, Chronic Wasting Disease
(CWD) has now been observed in free-ranging elk and mule deer in several western states. Since CWD is
passed animal to animal, concentrations caused by supplemental feeding is believed to increase the spread
of the disease" (Brown Unpublished).
In a report issued by a panel of internationally recognized wildlife disease experts who reviewed
Colorado's CWD management program...
"Regulations preventing...feeding and baiting of cervids should be continued" (Peterson et al. 2002).
In a comprehensive review of the ecological and human social effects of artificial feeding and baiting of
wildlife prepared by the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, Department of Veterinary
Pathology, University of Saskatchewan...
"Significant ecological effects of providing food to wildlife have been documented through observation and
experimentation at the individual, population, and community levels. The increased potential for disease
transmission and outbreak is perhaps of greatest and immediate concern; recent outbreaks of bovine
tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease in Canada and the United States giving credence to this point.
Nevertheless, even if disease is prevented, other significant ecological concerns exist" (Dunkley and Cattet
2003, p. 22).
Review and Acknowledgments
To insure that this document accurately reflects the scientific knowledge of prion disease, CWD, and deer biology,
this document was reviewed by the following specialists (position and expertise follows each name). I thank them
for their time. :

Judd Aiken Ph.D. (Professor of animal health and biomedical sciences, UW-Madison; prion diseases)

Valerius Geist Ph.D (Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Science, University of Calgary;
ecology behavior and management of deer)

Julia Langenberg DVM (Wildlife Veterinarian, Wisconsin DNR; CWD, wildlife diseases)

Nohra Mateus-Pinilla DVM, Ph.D. (Research Epidemiologist, Illinois Natural History Survey, University
of Illinois; wildlife diseases, epidemiology)

Nancy Mathews Ph.D. (Assoc. Professor of wildlife ecology, UW-Madison; deer ecology and behavior)

Keith McCaffery M.S. (Deer specialist, Wisconsin DNR, retired; deer ecology and management)

Robert Rolley Ph.D. (Population Ecologist, Wisconsin DNR; population dynamics, deer management)
Literature cited
BARTZ, J. C., A. E. KINCAID, and R. A. BESSEN. 2003. Rapid prion neuroinvasion following tongue infection.
Journal of Virology 77:583-591.
BENNETT, L. J., P. F. ENGLISH, and R. MCCAIN. 1940. A study of deer populations by use of pellet-group
counts. Journal of Wildlife Management 37:195-201.
BEEKES, M. and P. A. MCBRIDE. 2000. Early accumulation of pathological PrP in the enteric nervous system and
gut-associated lymphoid tissue of hamsters orally infected with scrapie. Neuroscience Letters 278:181-184.
BLOUCH, R. I. 1984. Northern Great Lakes and Ontario forests. Pages 391-410 in L. K. Sowls, editor. White-tailed
deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
DITCHKOFF, S. S., and F. A. SERVELLO. 1998. Litterfall: an overlooked food source for wintering white-tailed
deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:250-255.
DEMARAIS, S., R. W. DEYOUNG, L. J. LYON, E. S. WILLIAMS, S. J. WILLIAMSON, and G. J. WOLFE.
2002. Biological and social issues related to confinement of wild ungulates. Wildlife Society Technical Review 02-
3, 29pp.
(available at: http://www.wildlife.org/publications/index.cfm?tname=pubs&pubid=pub20)
DUNKLEY, L., AND M. R. L. CATTET. 2003. A comprehensive review of the ecological and human social effects
of artificial feeding and baiting of wildlife. Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, Department of Veterinary
Pathology, University of Saskatchewan, CANADA.
(available at: http://wildlife.usask.ca/english/CCWHCFeedingBaitingReportFinal_Feb2003.pdf)
GARNER, M. S. 2001. Movement patterns and behavior at winter feeding and fall baiting stations in a population of
white-tailed deer infected with bovine tuberculosis in the northeastern lower peninsula of Michigan. Dissertation,
Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.
HAWKINS, R. E., and W. D. KLIMSTRA. 1970. A preliminary study of the social organization of white-tailed
deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 34:407-419.
HEGGEBO, R., C. MCL. PRESS, G. GUNNES, K. I. INGLE, M.A. TRANULIS, M. ULVUND, and T.
LANDSVERK. 2000. Distribution of prion protien in the ileal Peyer's patch pf scrapie-free lambs and lambs
naturally and experimentally exposed to the scrapie agent. Journal of General Virology 81:2327-2337.
HUANG, F-P, C. F. FARQUHAR, N. A. MABBOTT, M. E. BRUCE, and G. G. MACPHERSON. 2002. Migrating
intestinal dendritic cells transport PrPSc from the gut. Journal of General Virology 83:267-271.
LESAGE, L., M. CRETE, J. HUOT, A. DUMONT, and J.-P. OUELLET. 2000. Seasonal home range size and
philopatry in two northern white-tailed deer populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1930-1940.
MAIGNIEN, T. C. I. LASMEZAS, V. BERNGUE, D. DORMONT, and J-P. DESLYS. 1999. Pathogensis of the
oral route of infection of mice with srapie and bovine spongiform encephalopathy agents. Journal of General
Virology 80:3035-3042.
MARCHINTON, R. L., and D. H. HIRTH. 1984. Behavior. pp. 129-168 in L. K. Sowls, editor. White-tailed deer:
ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
MILLER, M. W. 2002. Temporal and spatial dynamics of chronic wasting disease epidemics. p. 9 in R. H. Kahn,
coordinator. Chronic wasting disease symposium. Denver, CO, August 6-7. CO Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins,
CO. Abstract.
MOEN, A. N. 1976. Energy conservation by white-tailed deer in the winter. Ecology 57:192-197.
NELSON. M. E., and L. D. MECH. 1981. Deer social organization and wolf predation in northeastern Minnesota.
Wildlife Monographs 77:53pp.
O'BRIEN, D. J., S.M. SCHMITT, J.S. FIERKE, S.A. HOGLE, S.R. WINTERSTEIN, T.M. COOLEY, W.E.
MORITZ, K.L. DIEGEL, S.D. FITZGERALD, D.E. BERRY, and J.B. KANEENE. 2002. Epidemiology of
Mycobacterium bovis in free-ranging white-tailed deer, Michigan, USA, 1995-2000. Preventive Veterinary
Medicine 54(2002):47-63.
PETERSON, M. J., M.D. SAMUEL, V.F. NETTLES, G. WOBESER, and W.D. HUESTON. 2002. Review of
chronic wasting disease management policies and programs in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife
Unpublished Report, Denver, Colorado, USA.
PORTER, W. F., N. E. MATHEWS, H. B. UNDERWOOD, R. W. SAGE, JR, and D. F. BEHREND. 1991. Social
organization in deer: implications for localized management. Environmental Management 15:809-814.
PUTMAN, R. 1988. The natural history of deer. Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY, USA.
ROBBINS, C. T.1983. Wildlife feeding and nutrition. Academic Press. New York. NY. USA.
ROGERS, L. L. 1987. Seasonal changes in defecation rates of free-ranging white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife
Management 51:330-333.
SHAKED, G. M., Y. SHAKED, Z. KARIV-INBAL, M. HALIMI, I. AVRAHAM, and R. GABIZON. 2001. A
protease-resistant prion protien isoform is present in urine of animals and humans affected with prion diseases. The
Journal of Biological Chemistry 276:31479-31482. (available at: http://www.jbc.org)
SIGURDSON, C. J., E. S. WILLIAMS, M. W. MILLER, T. R. SPRAKER, K. I. O'ROURKE, and E. A. HOOVER.
Oral transmission and early lymphoid tropism of chronic wasting disease PrPres in mule deer fawns (Odocoileus
hemonionus). Journal of General Virology 80:2757-2764.
SIGURDSON, C. J., T. R. SPRAKER, M. W. MILLER, B. OESCH, and E. A. HOOVER. 2001. PrPCWD in the
myenteric plexus, vagosympathic trunk and endocrine glands of deer with chronic wasting disease. Journal of
General Virology 82:2327-2334.
TAYLOR, D. M., _. MCCONNELL, and H. FRASER. 1996. Scrapie infection can be established readily through
skin scarification in immunocompetent but not immunodeficient mice. Journal of General Virology 77:1595-1599.
VAN DEELEN, T. R., 1995. Seasonal migrations and mortality of white-tailed deer in Michigan's Upper Peninsula.
Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 158pp.
WEISSMANN, C., M. ENARI, P.-C. KLOHN, D. ROSSI, and E. FLECHSIG. 2002. Transmission of prions.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:16378-16383.
WILLIAMS, E. S., M. W. MILLER, T. J. KREEGER, R. H. KAHN, and E. T. THORNE. 2002. Chronic Wasting
disease of deer and elk: a review with recommendat

 very scientific. most of it pertains to 'mad cow'. why do we need it when there are no currently infected deer in the lower peninsula?

 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.

bugman:

 very scientific. most of it pertains to 'mad cow'. why do we need it when there are no currently infected deer in the lower peninsula?

No, it doesn't.

"The following is a partial list of scientific evidence that suggests that baiting and feeding of wild deer elevates the
risk of CWD transmission."

To answer your question, my apology to CJ for having to post this again:

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.

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.

 then bore me with why you didn't take precautions. you had exactly the same chance to eradicate tb that you do this disease. but you did nothing.

do you truly believe that a ban on feeding and baiting will eradicate this disease?