Environment and Property Rights

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

bugman — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 20:17:35 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

gypsy — Thu, 26 Mar 2009 15:33:00 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

Al T — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 16:06:20 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

cjhsa — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:25:12 GMT

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

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

gypsy — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:20:57 GMT

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

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

cjhsa — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 15:08:49 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

gypsy — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:55:24 GMT

Maybe reading the article would be even more illuminating.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

cjhsa — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:22:53 GMT

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!!!!

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

gypsy — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:19:41 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

gypsy — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 14:16:02 GMT

Ecological Impacts of Supplemental Feeding of Deer

By Buck Manager on Mar 26, 2008 in Supplemental Feeding

White-tailed deer habitat consists or food, water, shelter, and also space. Thus, food plots and supplemental feeding only impact the nutritional carrying capacity of a particular piece of property, not the total or actual carrying capacity. Assuming there is both adequate water and cover, supplemental feeding can greatly increase the number of the local deer population.

However, one thing to keep in mind is the amount of space and and habitat per deer decreases as the population size increases! More deer in an area mean less area for each individual deer. This may not be a problem if the number of deer is below the carrying capacity of the area, but this rarely seems to be the case with white-tailed deer.

One of the arguments used by those in support of supplemental feeding is that it not only enhances the nutrition and resulting health of the deer, but that it could possibly take pressure off of the natural vegetation by decreasing deer browsing. Unfortunately, there is little data to support this and plenty of data to refute it.

The use of food plots, supplemental feeding, and baiting has been greatly debated throughout the U.S., but should this extra nutrition really be included as part of the carrying capacity estimates for your property? The research says no.

Studies in Texas have show that fed deer can degrade habitat by over-consuming high-quality browse and under-consuming low-quality plants. Other data found increased browse pressure within a 1-mile radius of feeders, which can only be attributed to the concentration of deer!

This research does, however, have a silver lining for hunters. Several studies have found that the home range of a deer becomes smaller when feeders are present. One research project even found that home range sizes of fed deer were 50% of that of unfed deer. But that good news does not come without a price. Browse pressure near the feeders was 7 times that of habitat occupied by unfed deer.

In addition to degrading habitat adjacent feeders, supplemental feeding has been suspected of contributing to the spread of certain diseases within various species of North American ungulates, such as tuberculosis in deer, chronic wasting disease in elk and deer, and brucellosis in elk and bison.

So what does all this mean? Well, if you wish to provide supplemental feed — make sure that it is in fact supplemental. Avoid using the addition of food resources as justification to artificially inflate deer numbers on a property and subsequently degrade habitat. In addition, make sure you understand that feeders do concentrate deer (even if individual deer use the feed site at different times) and does make them more prone to disease.

window.google_render_ad();  window.google_render_ad();

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

cjhsa — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:30:29 GMT

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

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

midem — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:23:52 GMT

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?

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

midem — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 12:21:24 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

cjhsa — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:42:44 GMT

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.

Re: 2009 House Bill 4198 (Extend ban on deer feeding )

bugman — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 11:07:04 GMT

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.