Gypsy, I would not be bored with you posting why we should take precautions. I am reading this thread and would appreciate hearing the reasons for taking the current precautions.

I would also like to ask you if the previous statements that C.J. mentioned that you were repeating were statements of thought by you or something that you have read or are reading. The situation in Wisconsin really has no relationship to the one penned deer in Michigan. Also in your interpretation of the current baiting/feeding ban would you have a time line projection of how long it will take before caution in Michigan concerning CWD will be enough time before baiting and feeding is re-entered into the traditional behavior of Michigan's citizens. I do not care what time frame comes from the structure of Wisconsins findings, I am interested in speculations derived from the situation of the one infected penned deer in Michigan. In your personal opinion do you feel it will take until 2015 to remove the caution status from baiting/feeding deer in Michigan?

 you have asked questions which rhetoric cannot answer. do not expect a reply any time soon.

The previous statements I repeated were in the report by Timothy R. Van Deelen Ph.D. Wisconsin DNR Research, titled Chronic Wasting Disease and the Science in support of the Ban on Baiting and Feeding Deer. In that report, he sights the studies, research, and opinions of numerous scientist, not just from Wisconsin, but from around the country. The full report, with references, is posted in this thread a few post back.

I agree the situation here is not near as serious as it is in Wisconsin. CWD is in their deer herd. We so far have no evidence it is in ours, save the one deer in captivity. The baiting and feeding ban is at this point prophylactic.

I do not know how long the DNR will continue the ban, if this bill gives them the authority. The prion that causes the disease can exist in the soil for years, but I would think the longer CWD is not evidenced in the wild herd, the harder it will become for the DNR to continue the ban. I'm sure they will be watching the diseases move in neighboring states also.

 no sick deer. no ban necessary.

Were everything so simple.

 it is. no sick deer. no ban necessary.

OK, I see you've run out of argument.

 not at all. if you have a real reason why we should continue this ban beyond what might happen, i'd be happy to discuss it with you. till then, no sick deer, no ban necessary.

What, you want me to re-post all that I've posted? How about you come up with some facts, rather than opinion? That would bolster your argument tremendously.

 the facts are this. only one deer had c.w.d. it was not exposed to the wild herd. it died in captivity. no wild deer have 'shown up' with c.w.d. at all. so, other than 'what might happen', why do we need a feeding ban?

To belabor the point, because of what might happen.

 if your only 'excuse' to continue the ban is to stop what 'might' happen, you have no reason to ban baiting and feeding. to do so without a valid reason is to attempt to take away a right of the citizen. nothing less.

To stop what might happen is a valid reason, not an excuse. That's why one of the three little pigs built his house of bricks, because of what might happen. May I remind you of the ending of that story? Our right to hunt deer would be infringed if we let the deer herd die off because of our carelessness.

gypsy:

To stop what might happen is a valid reason, not an excuse. That's why one of the three little pigs built his house of bricks, because of what might happen. May I remind you of the ending of that story? Our right to hunt deer would be infringed if we let the deer herd die off because of our carelessness.

To expound upon your theory that stopping what might happen in the future is a valid reason for taking certain actions and not an excuse, do you believe that your theory should also have applied to first to aviation and then to space exploration?

The majority of hunters who have posted their opinion here believe that the MI-DNR has overreacted by instituting a ban on feeding wild deer, when the only evidence of CWD in the state was found in one captive doe at a privately owned and fenced deer farm.

That, sir or madam, as the case may be, is certainly a valid reason for removing the ban.

You are sitting on this thread like a fly on fresh horse pucky, continuously spouting your by well known opinion.  This is a tactic often used by those who put four-egged animal rights ahead of human rights, as well as by those known to champion the Quality Deer Management Association and its program of antler restrictions.

Ah yes, the poor three little pigs.  As it turns out, had not the big bad wolf been at their door, huffing and puffing and trying to blow their houses down, they might all have lived happily thereafter. But, then, let's not get into the issue of wolf reintroduction in Michigan and elsewhere, shall we?  Let's save that argument for future legislation having to do with Michigan gray woff management,.

C.J.

Your post was well stated and inline with the concerns of a majority of not only hunters but people that feel deer feeding is needed during bad winter months such as the northern lower.

When you mention the animal rights ahead of human rights I was a member of several organizations combating the animal rights infiltration of the National Forest Service. While baiting was getting its start in the northern lower and the U.P. NFS individuals tried to block deer baiting for hunting on NWS land. There were public forums held concerning this issue. The NWS as most of the federal government forgot that the National Forest Service land is public land owned by the citizens of this country, likewise is the public state land in Michigan. There was no disease mentioned at that time all it was attempting to do it curtail hunting on NWS land.

If the MDNR is doing their job they should be checking the dirt that Gypsy refers to concerning CWD being prelivant in that dirt as she or he stated. The ban should be lifted due to lack of evidence, and then if another case shows up in a wild deer action should be taken. We waited to see what the Japs were going to do concerning World War II and alot of people died at Pearl Harbor. They will wait to see what the CWD does and alot of deer will die needlessly. Already the road sides in the lower are littered with dead deer hit by cars and some in the areas where deer were not seen in the past as long as baiting was used. I still feel baiting and feeding are related to other interests the NRC is sleeping with one being the QDM people you mentioned as well as the use of another hunting tool that was never allowed in the past.

The three little piggies reminds me of the wolf being hunters and the piggies being animal rights activist back in the mid 90's. The only difference is the animal rights phenatics were doing the huffing and puffing as the NRC is.

Good points, Al.  Something that few know is that the Department of Interior, which houses the USFWS, is a partner of the UNs' International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN). The IUCN is also known as the World Conservation Union and several other US government agencies are also partners. 

Additionally, many nongovernment, environmental organizations, such as the National Wildlife Federation and Nature Conservancy, et al,  are also partnering members of the IUCN. They're often now referred to as 'stakeholders', though I wonder how their tax exempt status would allow them to be called anything other than 'freeloading intruders' who are giving way tooooo much bang for the buck, or lack thereof.  Some work with state and local resource management agencies through Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) to implement varioius mandates of various UN Treaties, whether those treaties have been ratified by the US Congress or not.  

This is the primary reason the MI-DNR is managing Michigan's natural resources, and this includes deer, on a regional ecosystem basis in conjuction with the several states and portions of Canada that surround the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence Seaway all the way out to the Atlantic. This came about through a UN treaty signed by Bill Clinton, but it's one such treaty that has never been ratified by Congress.

An attempt is being made by all these main IUCN  US partners and their many affiliated partners to rewild a great deal of America, which brings us to Michigan and reintroduced wolves, moose, cougar, and what have you. 

The powers that be would like to eliminate the 'human footprint' from forests, fields, wetlands, and waterways as much as possible so that the process of natural selection can carry on without the intrusion of human beings carrying firearms and/or rods and reels, as well as their intrusion by means of anything that could possibly carry an invasive seed pod (and now fishing bait) into these rewilded areas.  Of course this would include anything with wheels and even your shoes.

This post has little to do with the ban on feeding deer for hunting or viewing purposes, but this is part of what is driving the whole, and unfortunately the outdoor sportsmen are being hoodwinked into footing a great part of the bill for their eventual undoing.  What a pity!

CJ, I am "sitting on this thread like a fly on horse pucky" because I seem to be the only poster here who feels like the ban on feeding and baiting is not some government conspirancy to take our hunting rights away, our even worse, as you expounded on, but is a scientifically based decision the DNR has made to prevent the spread of CWD into our deer herd.

I have noticed on all of the threads at this site a tendency towards fear of government, bordering on hate. I try to view these issues in an objective manner and not see evil intent in governments every move. This is not to say I am naive. If conspirancy or hidden agendas are suspected, I investigate to the best of my available resources.

I understand your concerns about the baiting and feeding ban. I too see the precaution taken to be extreme, considering the fact a single deer was found, and in captivity. But after doing some basic research, I am of the opinion that the ban is a prudent move considering the devastation this disease could cause, and the difficulty eradicating it would be.

I know it would be nice for you and the other posters if I was not "sitting on this thread," as you say, but there are two sides to every issue, and they both need to be examined and heard. I also seem to be the only poster doing any research, or at least posting any reseach.

 we welcome your input. and are appreciative that you see the action of the d.n.r. to be extreme. to what do you attribute this extreme measure, other than to deprive hunters of their rights to hunt? it cannot be for the eradication of a non-existant disease, as that would be folly or tyranny, considering the science is not behind the action.

I attribute the extreme measure to prevention, as I have said, numerous times.

 so, where is the science behind this prevention? will this ban prevent the disease from spreading, or is it simply prophylactic? deer are social animals at other times than just feeding. this ban will not stop, or even work to curb the spread of this disease IF it should ever come here.

such extreme measures are not logical, they do not make sense given the information at hand. even prevention is useless and pointless if there is nothing to prevent. this ban is only an exercise in futility, as there is no exposure of deer to this disease in the area covered by the ban, and you cannot submit any science showing that there is.

 Bugman is at least partially correct and gypsy has her head buried in her tarot cards.  The bait ban is a logical fallicy, it doesn't take an Einstein to figure that out but it might take a Nugent to blast it through your cranium.

There is something more to this.  Hard to say how sinister it might be, it could be something very simple, but it certainly isn't obvious. 

And I repeat ad nauseum:  Alfalfa=corn=waterhole=doe=doe pee=acorns=bedding=cover=scrape=scent=BAIT.

 in response ot crazy cajun. 

 "is it the job of the legislature to tell us when to, and when not to feed deer?

NO.

it might be the D.N.R.'S JOB... SO LET THEM DO IT. they don't need a law."

you make a great point here.  it is up to the DNR to manage the deer heard.  However, they do need a law that gives them authority to implement the baiting ban.  that is exactly why this bill is important.  read the bill not the hype.  for any of you that missed it.  This bill gives the "authority" to the DNR to implement a baiting ban, ie the power is given to the specialist who understand this matter best.  I cannot understand why gypsy and bugman continue to debate the need for a baiting ban and all this other garbage.  maybe it has to do with being slightly confused.

 the point is this bill is not a baiting ban.  the legislature does not have the authority to put a baiting ban in place.

if you feel so strongly about the baiting ban contact the DNR or go to a natural resources trust fund meeting.

 and as i'm sure most others on this page have assumed bugman is probably somebody who makes a profit off baitpiles either by selling the bait or through guided hunts using bait piles.  anybody who cares about the deer population in MI would not sacrifice the long term health of the herd for one or two seasons of better hunting.  Don't you want future generations to be able to hunt deer in Michigan or do you only care about yourself?

 HSUS is all over this thread like squirrels on a pile of corn.

Ecological Impacts of Supplemental Feeding of Deer

By Buck Manager on Mar 26, 2008 in Supplemental Feeding

midem:

This bill gives the "authority" to the DNR to implement a baiting ban

Actually, it gives the DNR authority to extend the ban passed it's sunset. Thank you for pointing us back to the bill itself.

Gotta love those pics.  You see healthy deer browsing under a feeder in Texas, and starving deer "yarding" in a snow covered field (in Michigan perhaps?).     Thanks for posting that gypsy.  ILUM!!!!

Maybe reading the article would be even more illuminating.

gypsy:

Maybe reading the article would be even more illuminating.

I've read the article, about 100 MILLION TIMES.  It's the same old anti-hunter spam, spun to appeal to the little old ladies watching their bird feeder and voting for the enemy.

I don't think the Buck Manager web site is trying to appeal to little old ladies watching their bird feeders.

Do you think gunguys.com is trying to appeal to gun owners?

This issue is getting more confusing. It takes a bill from a politician to give the authority to the NRC to ban baiting/feeding because the legislators do not have that power, but need to give the authority to the NRC to have that power. If the NRC doesn not have the authority to intiate a ban on deer baiting/feeding that requires legislative intervention, why is there a baiting/feeding ban installed by the NRC that does not have the authority?

As far as baiting being a right concerning hunting, I can not agree totally with that. It has always been a legal technique used for hunting. The elimination of baiting does not remove the right to hunt, but does restrict hunting by removing a technique.

In 1999/2000 the MDNR biologists notified participating organizations and individuals at a meeting that they no longer will manage wildlife but will manage the ecosystem and the effects of white tailed deer on the ecosystem in the State of Michigan. The MDNR is not managing wildlife, they are ecosytem managers. I believe C.J. related to that issue in her post as well.

When the bait ban was intiated for the T.B. areas of lower Michigan some biologists and members of the MDNR included restrictions on bear baiting in Michigan by retricting the type of material used in baiting bear that would be consumed by deer. The current MDNR director played a part in this issue when she was a biologist. The at that time MDNR director at an NRC meeting in Upper Michigan was flabergasted that these restrictions were placed and that law enforcement was going to enforce them. At that meeting he told the biologists that these restrictions were not feasable and would not be enforced for bear hunting. He was very irritated that the restrictions were formed without his knowledge.

It is not that some mistrust the government in these issues persay. It is the lack in confidence in the MDNR and the potential abuse of power by the NRC in regards to them being appointed by a Governor that creates alot of mistrust. They are financially influenced and have no rationale where tradition and heritage is concerned. Under the jurisdiction of Proposal G, voted into law in 1996 the citizens of the State of Michigan are to be allowed input into natural resources issues and that sound, scientific, and biologically proven evidence is the basis of the NRC decisions. The lack of sound evidence other than a penned deer being infected with CWD does not justify the long term restrictions placed on baiting and feeding. If no animals were found to have CWD in the area of the infection in a year or two that should be enough evidence to say that the restrictions are not necessary. In Kent County where the penned deer was located they did restrict hunters by asking them to check their deer in. If that area is restricted to deer check ins and no further infection is found common sense would say it is not a disease that has spread to the rest of the state.

There are legitimate reasons for some not to trust the MDNR. The wolf issue in Upper Michigan is one that is most prelivant. We (residents) have lost hunting, trapping opportunity due to the part they play in stocking wolves with out regard of property owner rights as well hunting opportunity. Seasons have been adjusted to compensate the wolf restoration people to accomadate the removal of hunting land use and opportunity. These organizations are HSUS and other animal rights organization oriented and the MDNR plays its part in dehuminizing those areas. There is reason for mistrust to those that have knowledge of the every day works of the MDNR and it appears that there are very few that do have this knowledge. Sitting in a class room or office and reading reports from other places does not constitute knowledge needed to understand wildlife in general. The restrictions placed due to dehumanization of our properties creates the feelings that the knowledgable feel concerning the deer baiting/feeding ban. The MDNR has stated for years that baiting/feeding in no way is detrimental to the white-trailed deer herd in Michigan. This is an isolated incidence and if the NRC does not currently have authority that an act of the legislative branch needs to give them, what authority are they acting on at this time.

Al T:

This is an isolated incidence and if the NRC does not currently have authority that an act of the legislative branch needs to give them, what authority are they acting on at this time.

They have the authority now, this is a bill to extend it to 2015.

 if the d.n.r. is going to make arbitrary decisions, why should we extend the authority. they have already proven that science and the facts mean nothing to them.