# Way to Go NDG&F



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

When my buck tag came in the mail so did a G&F info package"CONCERNS WITH HUNTING BIG GAME OVERBAIT" I am so glad that they are addressing this issue. I have had this debate with some on this site before. They try to compare baiting deer,with the baiting of bear. Most hunters using common sense would not compare the two. G&F concerns why baiting is something we should do away with.
1.Access and opportunity
2.Deer Management
3.Disease Issues
3. Social Issues
My favorite part is under social issues-ARE WE RAISING A GENERATION OF HUNTERS WHO DON't SCOUT,LEARN DEER BEHAVIOR AND READ DEER SIGN?
Alot of the issues are the same with the Canned Shooters. I hope with the G&F support we can pass law banning the feeding and baiting of big game in ND! Teach our kids to hunt,not dump bait.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

Sweet


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Better not have a stand next to a corn, soybean, ect. field then, that is the biggest bait pile available.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

laite319 said:


> Better not have a stand next to a corn, soybean, ect. field then, that is the biggest bait pile available.


Once again a very ignorant statement in regards to the true issues surrounding baiting. Most studies I have seen show that food plots and Ag fields provide minimal nose to nose contact even during harsh wintering conditions. However baiting puts nose to nose contact at very high rates. Disease is at greatest risk of transfer during these times especially in environmental conditions that allow for diseases to survive longer periods of time.


----------



## KEN W (Feb 22, 2002)

Looks like a big push is coming to eliminate baiting during the next legislative session.Go get em GNF.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Hey Ron, you ever do any of these studies? If not you better rethink your point of view on what is ignorant. If you are just spitting out what you read, you have no more idea what is actually happening than I do. Also, the 15-30 deer I see eating in close proximity in a corn field doesn't count as "nose to nose contact"???? How close do they have to be?

Why don't you tell us all what the "true issues" of baiting are so I and people like me won't sound so ignorant.

My idea of a bait pile is a few handfuls of corn around my stand, not enough food to entice many possibly disease ridden deer to come eat.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

:withstupid:

I guess when I use a pail full of corn it is more to make sure I get the best shot possible. I would much rather stop a deer and make sure I get a great 1/4 away shot, instead of a broadside walking shot.

I guess I am not like some though where they throw down hundreds of pound a season.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So we go from not being able to hunt next to fields to the fact that you bait. Once again a classic example of people who have no defense in regards to disease transmission attempting to make others think that the G&F is attempting to take away most hunting situations!!!!

By the way, I have not participated in the actual studies, but I have direct contact with those that have especially in WI. In fact each fall I hunt at least one or two days with the guys that have done these studies. They use grids and cameras painstakingly watching then marking plants and where the deer may feed on the plant or the ground etc.. I am well aware of the work, time and meticulous work they put into monitoring areas of deer congregation.

Now tell me I am not educated as to what goes into the studies and how they are conducted.

So once again your statement about not hunting next to Ag fields was either plain ignorance or designed to promote a false position of the G&F!

You tell us which one!!!!!!


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

There is many ways this issue can go. So are the "bait" piles that every farmer has in there farm yards going to be illegal also? There is a ton more farms with "bait" piles around them then there is hunters that throw out actual... "PILES" of feed.

Just food for thought!


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ron, what percent of Wisconsin is forest? What percent of ND is forest?


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

> I hope with the G&F support we can pass law banning the feeding and baiting of big game in ND!


DrakeKiller, I'm with all the way, as long as they include feeding!!!!!!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

G/O that is a valid point, but in southern WI where the ground is less trees and more rolling plains and hills, the studies they conducted though showed a marked increase in nose to nose contact where baiting was used as well as feeding in the more open areas. In their view it had to do with the fact that baiting and feeding was easier in those areas and as a result baiting and feeding went on for longer periods of time. Basically starting soon and lasting longer.

In these areas where feeding and baiting took place, deer actually suffered higher mortality rates because they did not seek out food as would be their normal behavior or adequate winter shelter as well.

To me the only time supplemental feeding should be allowed is if done so under guidance by the G&F. This would happen when herding deer where causing depredation issues during times when snow conditions would prevent them from traveling to normal yarding areas. I have not seen these type of conditions in the winter for 10 years or more.
Such as what CO has attempted to do with the elk herds in areas.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Laite319
Wow, you have to be kidding. If Ron or anyone else was not involved in a study,any information learned is of no use unless you where there. Looks like I can spend the money I have been saving for my kids education. You can not compare a farm field or a food plot to grain piles on the ground.
Hunt4p&Y
You have to look at the big picture. You might have to pass on your shot. Do you really think that a farmers grain pile would be considered baiting or feeding,come on.
Example #1
Lets say you have been bow hunting for years and have learned many things about deer and their ways. You have become a good hunter. You have been hunting a big buck for two years,you have been close a couple of times,but have not had a good shot. You have been preseason scouting and think this is the year. Wrong. Some rookie hunter shot it over a pile of bait,the first day of the season.
Example #2
You have been hunting Mule deer for years. The ranches you have been hunting for years is now either leased or closed for pay hunters. The ranchers are now baiting deer for out of state bow hunters for big bucks. If they were not able to bait they would not have much success. 
The people that will be screaming the loudest about outlawing baiting will be people making money or hunters with out the skills to hunt without bait.


----------



## roughfishfever22 (Apr 30, 2008)

I would have to say it is ridiculous to compare an agricultural field to a bait pile. First of all most ag fields are more than 40 acres in size and the deer can feed anywhere they like on that field and will have the same food available. So it is hard to determine that exact location that the deer will feed in from night to night. I would have to say that the argument that agricultural fields are the same as bait piles is a weak excuse at best, mostly made by weak sportsmen. I'm just kidding but that should have gotten those of you that hunt over bait all fired up.

Here is my actual opinion on this matter. Is killing a deer that is being fed at the same spot everyday the most challenging and rewarding thing a sportsman can do. In my mind no, because (and nobody should be able to argue this) deer get conditioned to human sent around where they are being fed and consequently become less likely to spook even if they feel something is wrong. But if the person shooting that big buck with his head in a pile of corn and can proudly stand by that animal while it is hanging in the tree and tell everyone that ask him how he got it "I shot this buck at 15 yards with his nose in my bait pile." Then I would say congratulations to his face but say behind his back this guy might not know what the concept of fair chase and actual hunting is all about. Sadly I think that the story goes "I shot this big one at 15 yards away, the thing walked right in front of my stand stood broadside and then I put the arrow right through the pump station" when in all actuality it was 15 yards away because that is how far of a shot you wanted so that is where you placed you bait.

I say honor the animal by beating him in his own environment. Leave the corn for the cows. Alright let me hear it :beer: Just remember this forum is just in fun and these are just my opinions.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

For the love of God, I just hope they ban it and get it over with. Yes I have baited, it's nice to put out in the summer when the trail cams go up. But I am so sick of hearing and reading about it I could uke: . Just ban it and move on to the next thing.

My only fear is what will people b!tch about after baiting is banned. It never fricken ends.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

Drakekiller said:


> Laite319
> Wow, you have to be kidding. If Ron or anyone else was not involved in a study,any information learned is of no use unless you where there. Looks like I can spend the money I have been saving for my kids education. You can not compare a farm field or a food plot to grain piles on the ground.
> Hunt4p&Y
> You have to look at the big picture. You might have to pass on your shot. Do you really think that a farmers grain pile would be considered baiting or feeding,come on.
> ...


I think you missed my point by a mile. I was saying that if they are banning "baiting" because it is causing desease. AKA the studies that say the nose to nose contact is killing them, or whatever then how is that different then the hundred deer that come into the yard and eat off of the corn pile???

Yes, I have baited, no I have never killed a deer over it. Never had a deer that has been big enough come in to the stand that has had bait on it.

As for making claims that it is for people that are in-experienced.... Don't even get me started.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ron, you never answered my question instead you side stepped around it. It was a like being a little bit pregnant.



> To me the only time supplemental feeding should be allowed is if done so under guidance by the G&F. This would happen when herding deer where causing depredation issues during times when snow conditions would prevent them from traveling to normal yarding areas. I have not seen these type of conditions in the winter for 10 years or more.
> Such as what CO has attempted to do with the elk herds in areas.


You see Ron here is the problem, you talk about baiting is a disease concern then you turn around and say it would be alright to feed. If disease is the concern here as you've been preaching you can't be feeding. Unless feeding is included it is nothing but another I'm better than you bill. In my area we already have competition with who has the biggest food plot, to draw the deer over to the others land. Guess what the Game and Fish had the biggest, but a neighbor out did them this year :lol:


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

Here is the thing way people talk about corn fields as bait.....they are man made and not natural to the enviroment.

But I agree a pile of corn or what ever is different than a 160 acre corn field. But here is where it the same it is an attractant.

They both attract deer. it is a food source.

One thing about bait. If you put it down does not mean that the deer will come. It ups the odds but it does not always work.

Look at bear baiting. If a berry crop is out....bears leave the bait stations alone.

Just like corn piles for deer. If an acorn crop is out and falling hard. Deer will ignore the corn and eat acorns. I know where I am hunting if a large acorn crop is out.

Things to think about.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

Chuck Smith said:


> Here is the thing way people talk about corn fields as bait.....they are man made and not natural to the enviroment.
> 
> But I agree a pile of corn or what ever is different than a 160 acre corn field. But here is where it the same it is an attractant.
> 
> ...


Well said!

So as it has been stated above is the reason they are looking at getting rid of it actually because they are scared of disease? Or is it so un-experienced hunters can't do it?


----------



## roughfishfever22 (Apr 30, 2008)

Yes I will agree with you that food plots and bait piles both attract deer but food plots don't bring them into within feet of where you want the deer to be like a bait pile will. I also disaggree that bait piles won't always work. If there is deer in the area they will always find to a corn pile.

Also hunt4P&Y your posts on this thread confuse me. Ealier you wrote that you use bait to ensure that you always get 1/4 away shots, but later go onto say that you have never shot a deer over bait. Does this mean that you have never shot a deer.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

Yes, I understand how that was confusing. Like I have said in other threads. I have baited before. I baited the first few years I hunted, the last time I put down feed was when I was 15. I have never had a big enough buck present a shot when over bait. 9 times out of 10 they were does.

Now I only stand hunt a few different places, all in transition areas. I haven't shot a buck out of a stand in 5 years. Actually since the year I stopped putting down bait. I have however shot deer .. Does off of piles.... however according to the statements above it wasn't baiting because they were the piles of corn in the farm yard. I find it much more challenging to still hunt, puch belts, or hunt out west. Earning a buck in these ways is way more rewarding I feel.

I know it looks like I am going back on my words, which in a way I am. I guess I just should have picked my words better in the first post.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I will disagree with the fact that bait always work.

The deer may hit the bait pile but it might be at night when you can't be hunting. Just like food plots, just like ag fields, just like salt or mineral licks, etc.

I agree with that the nose to nose feeding.


----------



## AdamFisk (Jan 30, 2005)

roughfishfever22 said:


> Yes I will agree with you that food plots and bait piles both attract deer but food plots don't bring them into within feet of where you want the deer to be like a bait pile will. I also disaggree that bait piles won't always work. If there is deer in the area they will always find to a corn pile.
> 
> Also hunt4P&Y your posts on this thread confuse me. Ealier you wrote that you use bait to ensure that you always get 1/4 away shots, but later go onto say that you have never shot a deer over bait. Does this mean that you have never shot a deer.


I disagree 100% with your statement about bait piles always working (you and I probably have different views on what "working" is). Here is my example.......

When I use to bait (yeah, when I was a rookie), I had a crap load of pics of a 4.5yr old 7x5 with a drop tine. I hunted my arse off for him. I could set a watch to him, according to the pics anyways. Not once did I ever see him when I was in the stand. And that was quite a few hours in that stand. Sure, he could have smelled me, blah, blah, blah. But if baiting is such a sure thing as you say it is, that should have been a dead deer, right? Don't get me wrong, there were does and smaller bucks there, but not the one I wanted. To me, that means that baiting doesn't always work. Kind of sounds stupid, I know. But I had my mind set on that buck, or at least a P&Y, and never had the opportunity at one.

I have never shot a deer over bait and since then, quit baiting. Except for the occasional bucket when I hang trail cams. But like Chuck and Mike said, baiting isn't always a sure thing. I will agree with you and say that you will more than likely have a chance at a doe, if that is what you are getting at. But if it is a specific deer, i.e. big buck you are after, it don't always work. I think that may be what they are getting at also.


----------



## roughfishfever22 (Apr 30, 2008)

Chuck,

You can honestly say that if you put corn out for the deer everyday, that the does and fawns would not come eat it. I will agree that when acorns fall the deer stop eating pretty much everything else and feed on those for a couple weeks, but come November and December you don't think that you couldn't get the same does and fawns to come to your pile everyday. Big bucks is a different story.


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

roughfishfever22 said:


> Chuck,
> 
> You can honestly say that if you put corn out for the deer everyday, that the does and fawns would not come eat it. I will agree that when acorns fall the deer stop eating everything else and feed on those for a couple weeks, but come November and December you don't think that you couldn't get the same does and fawns to come to you pile everyday. Big bucks is a different.


Thats one of the reason people set up piles. They attract large numbers of deer. Gives you the chance to thin out old dried up does, and lame deer.

How many times have you seen a 160 + deer standing with 10 other deer? They like to stay low key and let others test out the waters first!

Anyone know the reasoning behind the proposed change? Is it for disease?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

G/O I did not step around it. Feeding to attract deer be it for those using a camera,bow,rifle or simply to have them in their back yard needs to go. My exception was to allow the G&F to administor feeding as a last means to prevent or reduce predadation issues during severe conditions if they deemed it nessasary. It would be up to them to allow and with set guidelines.

Hope that clears it up for you a bit.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> By the way, I have not participated in the actual studies, but I have direct contact with those that have especially in WI. In fact each fall I hunt at least one or two days with the guys that have done these studies. They use grids and cameras painstakingly watching then marking plants and where the deer may feed on the plant or the ground etc.. I am well aware of the work, time and meticulous work they put into monitoring areas of deer congregation.
> 
> Now tell me I am not educated as to what goes into the studies and how they are conducted.
> 
> ...


First off, good for you Ron, for hunting with such quality companions. Would you like a cookie, or perhaps an award?

Second, I did not say any thing about your education. I made the remark because if you and I do the exact same study and we are on opposite sides of an issue your numbers will say quite a bit to help your side, and my numbers will say quite a bit about mine. Just reading reports and spitting out facts from one side of the issue is pretty close to speaking from a point of total ignorance.

I guess I am ignorant when I see deer milling around the devils lake area every night in large groups. I am not sure how close they need to be to spread disease, but next rut, we better run around keeping the bucks away so no disease is spread. How are these diseases spread any way? Coughing, breeding, not washing their hands, eating food contaminated with fecal matter? Tell me since I am so ignorant.

My quotes are not "designed" to promote any position. I just like sparking good conversations, which would have happened any way on this topic, and I also like to see who are the cheerleaders, RAH! RAH! BAN BAITING!!, and who, as I am guessing you are Ron, is actually looking at the facts and discussing more pressing matters than "I am morally superior to you because I don't bait".


----------



## franchi (Oct 29, 2005)

laite319 said:


> First off, good for you Ron, for hunting with such quality companions. Would you like a cookie, or perhaps an award?


Man does this sh1t get old!

Come one guys, let it go. It turns into the same thing everytime it comes up.


----------



## g/o (Jul 13, 2004)

Ron, 46% of Wisconsin is forest, North Dakota has 4%. It's kind of hard to use Wisconsin as a comparison don't you think???? Again you want to allow feeding and this is the fault with the baiting issue. If you are going to use disease as an issue, then under no circumstances can you allow feeding. Much as the high fence haters trying last session to use disease as an issue on the shooting preserves. Then allowing people to raise them, the boys in Bismarck thank God can see through that logic.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

GO I do not disagree, for years most of the study was done in the timber regions of the state. The focus at that time had more to do with carrying capacity and the impact long hard winters had not only on the deer but the foliage as well. Then as the population levels increased especially in the farming region of the state and the areas not dominated by forest. They saw a need for studies in these areas as well. Most of the studies done where nose to nose contact and saliva saturation became apparent was in the southern regions of the state.

I sat through numerous DNR meetings covering this very topic before the baiting and CWD became a big issue in that state. These studies where yarding studies. Not baiting studies as latie is implying. Behavior, time of use, distance traveled to yarding areas etc...

Disease has always been a concern of wildlife biologist. What was gleamed from a lot of those studies was simply that baiting and feeding outside of food plots kept deer in concentrated areas above carrying capacity and increased dramatically nose to nose contact as well as contact with saliva saturated food.

Hey I have no issue with a complete ban on feeding period. My comment was directed solely as a predidation tool. Nothing more. Not to allow deer to survive a winter where they are not causing predidation. Not because Someone wants to retain deer in their area. Not because of an emotional feeling because someone thinks the deer may be suffering or it has been cold etc...

You should go to the WI DNR website, I think most of those studies are available on line for review. You will see in them the critera, and guide lines established for the observers to look for.

Oh and latie just so you know both of them use to hunt over bait before WI restricted it. So the information they gathered that showed the negative effects of feeding and baiting must have been a lot worse than they put down under your convoluted thinking process!


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I started off with my first post because I thought this was the same crap from an earlier thread about how baiting is for people who don't know how to hunt. I will gladly apologize for going off half cocked on the issue.

If the game and fish is concerned that there is a real threat to the deer population I support them 100%. I do game checks with them and have contact with them quite a bit. So to say I am against their position is crazy.

Ron, I have asked for your enlightenment twice now, and have received no reply. You say the words I use are ignorant, but when I ask you to give me some of your wisdom you won't do it. How are these diseases spread? What are the diseases they are worried about? When I am ignorant on an issue I have no problem accepting that, but when I ask for info so I am a little more informed you should help a guy out.



> Oh and latie just so you know both of them use to hunt over bait before WI restricted it.


Well, there you have it, if you can hunt with these guys after they have confessed their sins you must be a pretty good guy.

What part of my thinking process is convoluted? I am assuming you are talking about the stats being "polished" during a study so that one side or the other shines a little brighter???


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Would this law require all bale stacks, silage piles to have a hay fence?

Again, let's take off the table what is right and wrong... and think about impact and scope for a second here. Remember, it is hard to see the picture when you are inside the frame... take a step back now... this law as it is being explained here leaves a wide grey stripe that may ahve impacts that are foreseeable.

It sounds to me that if you are using the precedence of "Nose to nose contact spreads disease" that my first statement would need to be in place to comply correct?

Ron?
G/O?


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

First off NDK and others, the information the G&F put forward is really a position on baiting for big game. I am sure that come Jan we will have a bill offered in the Leg to address this issue. If it is shaped following the information the G&F are putting out, normal Ag practices will not constitute baiting. So farmer Joe will not be in violation for feeding his cattle. Nor will it require putting fences around any stacked hay.

I do not see where people leap to such conclusions! I harken back to Waterfowl hunting as an example. A farmer forgets to shut off his unloading auger for a few feet. This does not make the field baited, nor would it make it baited for deer.

Latie, one of the big concerns is TB which is now only 30 miles or so from the ND border in the MN wild deer herd. While it does not harm the deer they become carriers of the disease and because it can be transmitted via saliva and when deer yard up. Yarding is something that they will always do. However they do not yard up in Sept and Oct. Baiting and eating out of feeding stations or even 5 gallon buckets of corn increases the risk of this disease spreading within the deer herd which in turn increases the risk it will cross over into cattle.

MN has spent a good deal of money on trying to contain and isolate the TB outbreak. It has involved the shooting of deer outside of normal seasons to the point of trying to eliminate them completely. Even with those efforts more cases of TB have been detected in that area of MN and now cattle shipped from that area require testing and many states will not accept live animals from the affected areas. Thus basically shutting down brood stock markets for those cattle producers.
Not sure as of the status now, but I know the whole state of MN was required to have cattle tested prior to shipping. Even though the outbreak is in the northwest corner. Cattle producers in Albert Lea area are subject to the same restrictions.

So having a TB free state for cattle producers far outweighs any argument that proponents of baiting can make. Banning baiting especially some of those who dump 100's of bushels of grain weekly will reduce the frequency of contact between deer that can spread this and other diseases. It will not guarantee that TB will not get into our herd. But it will reduce the odds it getting in.

The other thing many do not realize is that if TB is found in the herd, the only real solution is total eradication of the deer in and around the affected areas. The G&F would be handed this task and our license fees would go towards this effort like it or not. Top that off with the cost of testing every animal to see if it is a carrier.

There are other diseases as well that we should all have a concern with, but the TB outbreak has pushed this issue to the forefront and the G&F are attempting to educate people as to the most sound course of action that we can take that will hopefully prevent it and if not at least slow its arrival!

Some object to baiting for ethical reasons, I have those feeling myself, but coming from a cattle/grain farm. Having friends still in the cattle business from the eastern half of the state all the way to the MT border. TB is a big concern for them.

If as you say a handful of corn around your stand is what you do, probably not much of a risk. However we have operations advertising the huge amounts of grain and bait they put out. Many of them in the north east portion of the state. Deer do not care about the river. Put enough bait out and attract the does into the area, bucks will come. 10-15 miles is not out of the realm of travel for a rut lust buck. Do the math and you can see that 30 mile buffer we have is not all that great. So why continue to allow a practice that artificially congregates deer early in the year when it is not normal behavior and run the risk of causing the TB virus to cross the river with them.


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

> Laite319
> Wow, you have to be kidding. If Ron or anyone else was not involved in a study,any information learned is of no use unless you where there. Looks like I can spend the money I have been saving for my kids education.


Drakekiller, you can read into what I said as much as you want, and it looks like you have a vivid imagination.

Simple fact of the matter is, I can read 500 books and watch every documentary made on the Vietnam war(or what ever subject you choose), but I still can't tell you what it was like to fight can I? Second hand knowlege is useful, but not nearly as good as first hand.

If you read studys from one side of the fence you may not be getting all of the information. As I said, stats and results can be tweaked and twisted to fit "your" point of view as a researcher. I was simply implying that just because he read a study doesn't necessarily mean he really has the whole picture in front of him. From reading the last post though, I see that he does have a lot of very good info.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

First off disease is spread with large feed piles. I have never baited, but it doesn't bother me a lot. When trapping if you have more than a pound of bait the trap has to be away from the pile to eliminate catching birds of prey. Maybe it's changed but one pound was what it was years back. Anyway, the disease problem wouldn't exist if people could only use one or two gallons of bait at a time. It would be even better if they spread that bait rather than dumping it. 
What bothers me today is landowners, hunter, guides, who go about baiting like the United States/Russian arms race. One pile gets bigger, and next year the neighbor has a bigger pile, and some hunter shows up with a 300 bushel truckload. Baiting to attract deer for personal hunting doesn't bother me. Baiting to take away from your neighbor or another hunter does bother me. The individual hunter is a sportsman, the bait to take from others isn't a sportsman, he is just another greedy person willing to shaft his fellow man for his own gain. 
I know a couple of landowners that just leave me scratching my head. They put out bushels of corn to draw deer, then they don't hunt their own land. When winter gets tough they complain about the deer. I don't understand what they are thinking. It has had me curious for years.



> but next rut, we better run around keeping the bucks away so no disease is spread.


Bucks and does aren't nose to nose in the rut.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

laite319 said:


> Hey Ron, you ever do any of these studies? If not you better rethink your point of view on what is ignorant. If you are just spitting out what you read, you have no more idea what is actually happening than I do.


???


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

That is right Drakekiller. If you just read some thing from one side you probably don't have a grasp of the whole picture. If you are there doing the studys you will have a much better grasp of the whole picture, or if you are not actively participating in a study, have an open mind, and look at the issue from the opponents side(know thy enemy) you will also have a much better understanding of what is going on. In this case it seems pretty clear that Ron does have a very good grasp on what is happening. I wanted to be sure he wasn't another one of the cheerleader types just screaming about an issue from his side, without really knowing both sides.

In my opinion people who only look at one side , their side, of an issue, and try to convert others to their way of thinking are speaking from a position of ignorance.

Again, it has been shown this is not the case here.


----------



## Trapper62 (Mar 3, 2003)

This issue/debate will forever take this direction until it is put to a vote, so I agree with an earlier post, vote it and get it over with - than we can argue the next issue that rises to the surface - which will happen!

Read Manitoba's research - ONE concern they have (and they have some valid research) is with the grooming tendancies of MATURE bucks and the spread of disease through saliva exchange. I don't remember the exact numbers but this will be close.

Mature buck groom each other by licking around the eyes, ears and in general the face of each other daily. This is done starting with the spring shed up until just prior to the rut, it than resumes shortly after the secondary rut comes to an end. IF (no I do not have first hand knowledge in the study) this is so, than wouldn't it make sense to harvest the mature bucks to aide in illiminating the spread of disease? Does and fawns groom in this manner also but usually only to each other!

When this goes to a vote will I vote for it? - No!, for many reasons! Do I bait? - Yes! Do I use large piles? - No!, Have I gotten pictures of large bucks at baits?- Yes! Have I harvested one over bait? - No!

I am no rookie to hunting, started when I was old enough to carry a gun and am now approaching 47 y.o. with many harvests and many type of animals harvested with gun, muzzelloader and bow. I have a Masters Degree so I consider my self educated. I have an Associated Degree in Wildlife Mgmt., and a Bachelors degree in Wildlife Biology.

This is not a statement to brag, but instead one to eliminate the comments about being mis-informed, which I hate. Under-informed is better in my opinion because most people hear a single statement and run with only that believing it is gospel!


----------



## goldfishmurderer (Jul 1, 2008)

I sure hope they don't ban baiting! I would really get tired of pulling cranks for walleyes!


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

So Trapper does baiting artificially increase the concentration of deer in a given area and does this concentration when those deer are drawn in from surrounding areas increase the risk of disease transmission?

We know that there is nose to nose contact, saliva exposure and all of these things in the wild. Nobody is saying it does not exist. What is being stated at least by me is that increased concentrations increase the risk of transmission. Please with your knowledge dispute that fact, which has been shown both in studies done in MN,WI,MI and yes even TX!


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Please with your knowledge dispute that fact, which has been shown both in studies done in MN,WI,MI and yes even TX!


If you are going to challenge someone to dispute facts by supposedly studies that were conducted by experts, then it is your responsibility to list/link those facts/studies for all to read. Otherwise what you say is nothing more than hearsay. You said yourself "what is being stated at least to me", which in my mind means what you are being told, not what you know from first hand experience or studies of your own. One should be able to backup their own claims before challenging someone else's. Besides I really would like to read some of these studies as I'm sure others would.

Appears to me to look like another hunting ban coming down the road with ethics and disease as the the lead instruments to once again to be used. Doesn't this dreaded nose to nose scenario also happen in a one or two acre food plot? After all it does artificially increase the concentration of deer in a given area. Maybe food plots should be on that list also.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Cwoparson, actually I am familiar with a few publications that support the disease issue myself. That's from a person (me) that doesn't have anything against baiting if kept to under a gallon of bait, and spread it.

Not being at work I don't have easy access to a library, and I sure am not going to spend a day there looking for something I already know. Being retired I have better things to do, but knock yourself out, the library will have it for you. Maybe one of my friends will read this and send me an electronic copy of the latest. It's only about eight or ten pages. I'll call him next Thursday when he is back. You might want to PM and remind me.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

cwo some of the studies are listed on the WI DNR website. I said this in one of my earlier posts. Do a bit of looking you will find the summary and I do believe the full PDF file.

You want to make this about ethics, the debate is going to be about economics and baiting will lose!!!!!!!!

In these studies Food Plots are addressed as well as certain types of crops etc... So knock yourself out. I just want Trapper to address a valid question and concern regarding the artificial concentration of deer and how that affects the issue of disease transfer vs normal behavior!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I just want Trapper to address a valid question and concern regarding the artificial concentration of deer and how that affects the issue of disease transfer vs normal behavior!


I guess I look at that as a moot point. Both transfer disease, but one we can do something about and the other we can't. Unless someone wants to run around the woods with a hankie blowing every dripping buck nose out there.  Sounds like a job for PETA or HSUS.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Ron I'll take a look on the WI DNR website and see what I can find. As a correction to your comment about ethics, I am not making this about anything. You are the one that brought up the word ethics, not I. Read back to your own post. Still, I'm curious if nose to nose is such a big concern then why isn't a small food plot just as much a concern as a bait pile?

Plainsman as far as baiting goes, for myself I'm against using them. I am also against food plots for myself. Couple those two with a tower sitting off in the corner with a hunter perched in it, it is just not my style of hunting. However if others feel the need to use those methods then they should feel free to do so. I do understand that cattle won't be in or near a food plot and that is what I see this is really all about, the protection of ranchers and cattle. But realistically cattle shouldn't be around a bait pile either unless someone just loves watching cattle eat. So when baiting goes it is only logical that someone will decide to go after food plots with the same reasoning.

Just seems like the list of non accepted hunting methods is growing longer and longer each day. Can't help but think that some day we will regulate ourselves completely out of the sport.


----------



## Trapper62 (Mar 3, 2003)

I refuse to spend wasted hours on the Internet researching something that is not debaitable, (catch the spelling on that one)? This is a topic where one side cannot persuade the other regardless of how many studies are cited.

Ron, with your question, stated, as it is, I would be a fool to answer it with anything but a "YES" when talking about artificially concentrating animals. The animals whose home range has bait placed in it will concentrate more in the area of the bait than to other areas of the home range. Anyone with a brain in his or her head should know this. This is why, when banding waterfowl, the USFWS uses bait piles to draw waterfowl to nets, and it works!

Does a street dance and beer in a small rural town concentrate people, sure; does it increase the chance of spreading the common cold (or many other diseases for that matter), you bet? But people still attend; it is their nature, same as for wildlife when a new food source occurs in their home range, bait pile, mineral lick, food plot whatever it may be.

When talking about increasing the risk of disease transmission, only "if" the disease already occurs in the population, to my knowledge, ND has a pretty healthy population! When EHD occurred in the 70's, there were areas that stunk of decaying Whitetail deer. The answer was to limit the harvest in these areas, ask hunters to collect blood samples from harvested deer, monitor the spread of the disease and eventually the population rebounded with a healthier herd. Baiting was not occurring than as it is now and still EHD spread like wildfire in some areas of ND

Personally I feel baiting has been abused in ND, I have personally seen it! But I think that banning it will just cause people to be more creative in how they bait, and will become a regulation nightmare for law enforcement. We already have to few of them as it is.

I snare coyotes using "Draw stations" (fancy name for bait pile) because it concentrates coyotes to an area and it works, will this become an illegal practice? Technically it is placing of bait for the purpose of attracting wildlife!

As I stated earlier, I will not vote for this law because I am afraid of the repercussions that will occur because of it. It has the potential to cause a snowball effect, especially when personal agendas or people who don't agree that something, someone is doing are wrong in their eyes.


----------



## blhunter3 (May 5, 2007)

Trapper62, nice post. I personally don't hunt deer. If I do I shoot does. This arguement has great points on both sides. I think that they should leave the rule as is, because it is so hard to monitor. The CO's have other thigns that need to be tended to. I personally don't bait deer. But when hunting coyotes I do. I only see this baiting law ever being passed is when there is a disease that is spreading.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Trapper, the current deer herd in ND is free of CWD and TB based on the animals which have been tested. MN that is not the case. Hence this whole issue is really about reducing the probability of deer from a known infected area being drawn into ND.

The river does provide a small barrier but I have seen deer swim swifter waters and wider waters to reach food. The same for bucks in rut. Keeping the herd dispersed in normal patterns and concentrations will reduce the risk of infected deer traveling in from the east.

Enforcement nightmare, not really.

When all the BS is broken down the issue at hand is artificial concentration of deer by placing products like corn with the purpose of drawing in, or holding deer that normally would not come or stay in that area.

Food Plots get used at higher rates, but as shown in the studies done, they do not increase the risk of disease transmission much. I think the statistical number was less than 2% if memory serves me. One reason is that it provides food allowing the animals to be more dispersed and this lowers the risk of contact that is known to cause disease transfers, Put 500 bushels of corn standing in a field or dump it on the ground. Which one is going to have more nose to nose contact and cross saliva contamination?


----------



## Trapper62 (Mar 3, 2003)

Your questions are good Ron, good because they can only produce the answers that you are looking for. Kind of like surveys companies send out, they ask the questions in such a manner that they know the answers b/4 the results come in!

You go to a pizza buffet, on one side of the room is a buffet of premade, hot pizza of every type imaginable, on the other side is a buffet of all the fixings to make your own pizza, Which one will concentrate the most people and possibly the most contamination?

Hard to answer it without already knowing the answer isn't it!

Like I state I will not debait and waste time reading and searching articles to try to sway an unswayable topic. I respect your opinion but do not agree with the whole!

THE END


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

Trapper or anyone why is it that when it is pointed out that studies have shown baiting increases the activity of deer that is the cause of disease transmission nobody wants to address this issue.

Instead we hear things like there is this activity already, or you better ban hunting around fields, and baiting is no different than a food plot etc..

Like it or not, the risk of disease is going to cause many who do not care, do not hunt to stop and access the economic impact that continued unchecked baiting can cause. Once that economic impact is understood all of the smoke screens that have been attempted will be blown away!!!!!


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

Hell, if some thing as simple as making it unlawful to put large piles of bait, or having food plots works to slow the spread of disease, why not??? I guess I can still hunt without having some corn on the ground.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

> Hell, if some thing as simple as making it unlawful to put large piles of bait, or having food plots works to slow the spread of disease, why not???


But is that the case? I don't know, do you. I ask for links and proof and was told to go look for it myself. Right now all I'm reading is hearsay and I certainly won't accept that as valid proof. Besides the goal should be to stop the spread of a disease, not just slow it. Funny how when someone voices a opinion, asks a question or offers a alternative it is bs and smoke. So far no one has even suggested there is nothing wrong with baiting nor has anyone suggested there is no possible spread of a disease with baiting but the smoke and bs yell has been thrown several times by one person. Don't know about you but that raises all kinds of red flags here.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

http://www.dnr.state.wi.us/ Here is a link to the site. Go to topic search and read away.


----------



## Hunter_58346 (May 22, 2003)

So now we should compare or equal North Dakota to Wisconsin? I think you can do better than that. Beliefs are what they are, nothing more. Proof is what most people here are looking for, not biased opinions. What would you say if there was a major push to outlaw compound bows? Traditional long bows only, nothing more. Stupid at best but a mindset none-the-less.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

You have to be kidding me. One article published in 2003 on CWD and terms like "Concentrating deer and elk in captivity or by artificial feed *probably* increases the likelihood of direct and indirect transmission between individuals" are used with with several similar sentences using the words *may, could,* and *possible*. Nothing with a solid *would* whatsoever and half of the opinion is based on models which means it is computer driven guesstimates. Garbage in garbage out ring a bell? This is not a scientific study. It is just an opinion and almost 6 years old at that.[/u]

I think I can see where this is going and Trapper62 was right, this is a waste of time.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

March 18, 2008

Since 1994, the state of Michigan has recognized a problem with Mycobacterium bovis in wild white-tailed deer from a fourteen county area in northeastern Lower Michigan. In 2007, surveillance activities for M. bovis continued statewide, with an emphasis on the northern half of Lower Peninsula. In white-tailed deer, 27 animals cultured positive from 8,308 deer submitted for testing.

Since the index cases were first identified, over 162,000 free-ranging deer have been tested for bovine tuberculosis; 594 infected animals have been found. Increasingly, the spatial epidemiology of the disease is revealing a highly focal, clustered pattern. Approximately 97% percent of all positive deer identified to date originated from a five county area. Moreover, within that area, the vast majority of positive deer were from Deer Management Unit (DMU) 452. Even within DMU 452, the spatial arrangement of cases is highly clustered, in spite of the fact that sampling effort has been relatively uniform geographically.

White-tailed deer are the maintenance host and primary reservoir for TB in the Michigan outbreak. If eradication is to be achieved, control strategies must focus on the disease in deer. Strategies for eradication of TB from Michigan wildlife continue to focus on 1) reducing deer population densities to biological carrying capacity and 2) reducing artificial congregation of deer by restriction or elimination of baiting and feeding. These strategies have been implemented through provisions of a late firearm antlerless deer season, sufficient antlerless deer licenses to reduce the deer population, and by prohibition of deer baiting and feeding.

Population estimates based on reconstruction techniques similar to the sex?age?kill method described by Creed et al. (1984)1 suggest that the deer population in the five county area has declined approximately 27% since 1995. The achievement of this substantial population reduction highlights the critical role that hunters have played in the control of TB in Michigan. Nonetheless, persistent focal areas of high density on private land remain problematic. Baiting and feeding have been prohibited in the seven counties from which 98% of all TB positive deer have originated. Policy makers have committed to keeping these regulations consistent for a minimum of five years starting June 2002, in order to improve compliance and enforcement. The overall scope of feeding has declined dramatically since 1997, with large scale feeding largely a thing of the past. While some illegal baiting and feeding continues to occur, the size of these sites is substantially reduced, and it is hoped that heightened enforcement is expected to reduce the practice further over the next several years.

While much work remains, substantial progress has been made towards eradication of TB from Michigan wildlife. Apparent prevalence in the core area of the outbreak DMU 452 was 1.4% in 2007. Trend analysis of prevalence data from 1995 to 2007 indicates a statistically significant decreasing trend.

Michigan's TB intervention strategies are working; however, it is too early to claim victory in eradicating the disease. The need to stay the course is important, but will be difficult, due to ever increasing pressure from a variety of sources to lessen these intervention strategies.

The intervention strategies have been successful in bringing down the average prevalence in DMU 452; however, there are clusters of disease that will be more difficult to manage. With that in mind, the State of Michigan is evaluating a new intervention strategy that may be more acceptable to many hunters and landowners. The new strategy is based on live-trapping and TB-testing of wild deer, and removal of positive animals. And if a safe and effective TB vaccine could be developed, then captured deer that tested negative for TB could be vaccinated before release. This strategy is not intended to replace initial strategies, but may assist them in eliminating TB from the deer herd in focal areas.

The Michigan Department of Natural Resources (MDNR) initiated the new strategy in a township with relatively high TB prevalence within DMU 452 during the winter of 2003. Link to report on the new strategy The results of the pilot are cause for optimism on a number of fronts. The project was well received and supported by the public. Appreciable numbers of deer were captured with reasonable efficiency and low mortality. Tracking and removal techniques worked well. The one facet of the project that failed was the blood test.

An effort to develop a more accurate blood testing procedure was the focus during the 2004 and 2005 hunting seasons. Hunters were asked to collect blood from deer harvested in DMU 452, and to submit the blood and the deer head to a deer check station. The lymph nodes from the deer heads were cultured for TB and culture results compared with results from seven TB blood tests. One blood test, the Rapid Test (RT) that can be done in 20 minutes in the field with whole blood looks promising for field use.

During the winters of 2007 and 2008, the MDNR and the United States Department of Agriculture -Wildlife Services (USDA-WS) pilot-trialed the capture, test and cull strategy that the MDNR had been working on since 2003, in a relatively high TB prevalence area in DMU 452. Almost 800 deer were captured and tested for bovine TB using the RT. Eight deer tested positive on the Rapid Test. The pilot project showed that a substantial number of deer can be captured and quickly tested for TB in a field situation. Most of the deer that were both culture positive and Rapid Test positive had extensive TB lesions in the chest cavity indicating advanced infection. It appears that the RT works best at detecting highly infected animals when numerous TB lesions are present.

The DNR is working with USDA researchers in Ames, Iowa to develop a TB vaccine for use in wild deer. Preliminary results are encouraging, and the vaccine appears to give some protection from disease. Vaccinated groups of deer given the vaccine orally or subcutaneously had statistically significantly fewer visible TB lesions and less severe TB lesions than unvaccinated deer.

In summary, Michigan is showing progress in eradicating bovine TB from its wild deer population. However, this success is fragile and we need to be diligent in maintaining our control strategies.

1Creed, W. A., F. Haberland, B. E. Kohn, and K. R. McCaffery. 1984. Harvest


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

HISTORY OF LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS FOR BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS ERADICATION IN MICHIGAN'S WILDLIFE
YEAR
AMENDMENTS/LEGISLATION
SURVEILLANCE/ REGULATION AREAS
HUNTING
BAITING/FEEDING
1996
Wildlife Conservation Order Amendment (WCO Am) No. 12-1998: Deer Management Unit (DMU) 452 created 9/1/96.
DMU 452, 1996 Core Area, was created. It contained portions of Alcona, Alpena, Montmorency and Oscoda counties.
Liberal permits in DMU 452.
Letter to hunt clubs in DMU 452 seeking voluntarily cessation of supplemental feeding of deer.
1997
1996 continue
Liberal permits in DMU 452.
Disease Control Permits issued.
Letter to hunt clubs in DMU 452 seeking voluntarily cessation of supplemental feeding of deer. Estimated 50% compliance.
1998
Governor Engler's Executive Directive 1998-1: calls for strategy to eliminate bovine TB in Michigan. 1/29/98
ERA Order1998-01: feeding banned by Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) in an Enforced Restriction Area (ERA) bordered by I-75, M-55 and the shoreline of Lake Huron; set measures to limit access of wild deer to livestock feed. 3/12/98
WCO Am 2: deer baiting parameters set. 3/12/98
WCO Am. 6: DMU 452 expanded to encompass 5-county area. 5/15/98
WCO Am 15: deer baiting parameters set. 9/10/98
Wildlife Rehabilitation Am.: no rehabilitation of deer from DMU 452.
The Movement Restriction Zone (MRZ) or Enforced Restriction Area (ERA) and Buffer Zone were created, within the area bounded by I-75 and M-55.
DMU 452 was expanded to 5 counties: Alcona, Alpena, Montmorency, Oscoda and Presque Isle.
The 1996 Core Area continues to be used for data analysis and calculation of apparent prevalence of the disease.
Liberal hunting permits in DMU 452: antlerless licenses available over-the-counter (1 per day)
Disease Control Permits issued
Early and late antlerless seasons in DMU 452
In the Buffer Zone, all applicants for private land only antlerless deer licence received a license and there was a late firearm deer season.
In the MRZ, Director of the Department of Agriculture (MDA) banned feeding and the Natural Resources Commission (NRC) limited baiting to 5 gallons Sept. 1 - Dec. 31. Use of salt or minerals prohibited.
In other parts of the state there were no feeding or baiting restrictions.
Feeding for recreational viewing is banned in the MRZ.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

DEER BAITING ISSUES IN MICHIGAN
MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RESOURCES
WILDLIFE DIVISION ISSUE REVIEW PAPER 5
February 26, 1999
ISSUES
The mission of the Wildlife Division of the Michigan Department of Natural Resources (DNR) is: To
enhance, restore, and conserve the State's wildlife resources, natural communities, and ecosystems
for the benefit of Michigan's citizens, visitors, and future generations. Implicit in this mission statement
is the goal of maintaining viable populations of game species that provide recreational opportunities for
people. An important function of the DNR is to make recommendations to the Natural Resources
Commission (NRC) concerning methods and manner of take of species under Commission authority. All
recommendations are established with consideration of the biological and social impacts of proposed
changes and are based on the best available scientific information.
The DNR was asked to examine the issue of deer baiting and consider whether the practice should be
regulated. Bait is a substance (except for decoys and scents, which are not considered bait) that is used to
lure or attract deer during an open season for deer. There are no restrictions on the use of legal bait in
Michigan, except in the Bovine Tuberculosis (TB) Management Area. The purpose of this paper is to
review the biological and social implications of regulating or restricting deer baiting.
BACKGROUND AND DISCUSSION

CATEGORIES OF BAITING
The amount of bait used and the length of time that hunters bait vary widely. DeJong (1988) identified three
primary categories of bait used by hunters as distracters, attractors, and concentrators.
Bait used as a distracter involves using just enough bait along a trail or the natural movement pattern to keep
the deer busy as the shot is taken. The hunter still must select a suitable spot for a blind where deer are
present naturally. An attractor draws deer into a desirable location and distance for the shot. The hunter
picks an area where deer are present but draws them into a pattern of movement, which makes them
accessible to the hunter. A concentrator moves deer into an area and holds them for an extended period of
time. The practices of baiting and feeding may be difficult to distinguish especially when they occur on a
large scale such as with a concentrator. Some feeding activities sometimes become baiting only because they
are used for hunting purposes during the season on deer. Michigan hunters used an average 16.3 bushels of
bait in 1984 (Langenau et al.1985). By 1991, this had increased to an average of 40 bushels per hunter
(Winterstein 1992). This would suggest that the average bait hunter in Michigan probably used bait as an
attractor or concentrator, rather than a distracter.
DISEASE
The primary biological consideration of baiting deer is the increased potential for disease transmission
whenever animals are concentrated (Leopold 1933). As part of the evaluation of the bovine TB eradication
process in Michigan, research is being conducted to determine the effects of feeding and baiting on deer
movement, migratory patterns, and behavior. Unregulated baiting can concentrate deer for a prolonged
period of time, in contrast to the normal grazing or browsing practices of deer in the wild. Concentration
leads to close animal-to-animal contact and stress that may facilitate transmission of diseases such as bovine
TB. The strongest hypothesis proposed by scientists involved with the problem is that the maintenance of
bovine TB in Michigan white-tailed deer is directly related to supplemental feeding/baiting and the increased
focal densities these practices create (Schmitt et al. 1997). Under the unnatural circumstances of
supplemental feeding, inhalation of the bovine TB bacteria or consumption of feed contaminated with bovine
TB bacteria by coughing and exhalation is much more likely to occur (Schmitt et al. 1997). In response to
the bovine TB outbreak, the Michigan Department of Agriculture (MDA) prohibited supplemental feeding
practices within the Bovine TB Management Area except for the purposes of baiting during hunting seasons.
The NRC then restricted the amount of bait that could be used in that area to reduce the occurrence of deer
concentrations. These regulations limit the amount of bait that can be used at one time to five gallons and
restrict baiting to a September-January 3 period. These measures were thought necessary to help eliminate
bovine TB in the deer population in the northeastern Lower Peninsula by reducing large concentrations of
deer at feeding and baiting sites within this area, while still allowing hunters the opportunity to harvest deer
over the bait.
Another disease of deer that has been observed in free-ranging deer and elk in Colorado and Wyoming and
captive deer and elk in South Dakota, Oklahoma and Nebraska is chronic wasting disease (CWD).
Experimental and circumstantial evidence suggests infected deer and elk probably transmit the disease
through animal-to-animal contact and/or contamination of food or water sources with saliva, urine, and/or4
feces (Williams and Young 1980, Miller, Wild and Williams 1998). Chronic wasting disease seems more
likely to occur in areas where deer or elk are crowded or where they congregate at man-made feed and
water stations. Artificial feeding or baiting of deer and elk may compound the problem (Williams and Young
1980, Miller et al. 1998). This disease has not been reported in Michigan; however due to its spread in the
western U.S., it remains a potential problem (T. Cooley, DNR, Rose Lake Wildlife Lab., East Lansing, MI,
pers. comm.).
Other diseases of concern in white-tailed deer in North America are anthrax, blackleg, brucellosis,
hemmorhagic disease, vesicular stomatitis, leptospirosis, listeriosis, tularemia, anaplasmosis, and brain worm
(Hurley 1995). Blackleg has been reported in Michigan in association with deer that had been injured during
capture. Hemmorhagic disease outbreaks have occurred in Michigan, although the effects were not
widespread (T. Cooley, DNR, Rose Lake Wildlife Lab., East Lansing, MI, pers. comm.). Brain worm is
present in Michigan deer but is of no public health significance since it is not infective to humans (T. Cooley,
DNR, Rose Lake Wildlife Lab., East Lansing, MI, pers. comm.). Although it is difficult to attribute the
spread of disease to deer density alone, it is true that some disease problems arise more commonly in areas
of high density and are less frequent in low-density areas (Eve 1981). This can be attributed to several
factors including poor nutrition, stress, and increased number of animal-to-animal contacts (Davidson 1981).
Enterotoxemia, a disease of overeating, affects yarded deer subjected to supplemented feeding. Hunters
frequently use high-energy, high-carbohydrate foods such as corn as bait, which has been shown to affect the
microflora in the deer rumen. The overeating of these food sources increases the fermentation (lower pH -
more acidic) that occurs in the deer's rumen, which causes bloating and leads to diarrhea, enteritis, and
possible death. Michigan deer also concentrate in winter yards and other areas even where bait is not
present, although enterotoxemia has only been found in yarded deer, which are fed supplemental highenergy,
high-carbohydrate food (Michigan DNR 1993). This disease occurs almost yearly in Michigan,
although it is reported in relatively low numbers (T. Cooley, DNR, Rose Lake Wildlife Lab., East Lansing,
MI, pers. comm.).

EFFECT ON MOVEMENT PATTERNS
There are other aspects of deer biology that could be negatively affected by unregulated baiting practices.
For example, baiting may delay deer migration to winter habitats (Ozoga and Verme 1982). A delay in
migration due to fall baiting may keep deer in areas lacking natural food sources and cause starvation when
sources of supplemental feed are stopped.
Another behavioral change in deer frequently attributed to deer baiting is increased nocturnal activity
(Charles 1993). Synatzke (1981) observed heavy nocturnal use of bait in Texas. Use of baited sites
seemed to become more nocturnal as the hunts progressed, possibly reflecting increased wariness of deer
due to continuous hunting pressure. This may suggest that human disturbance rather than the influence of bait
may affect the nocturnal and diurnal behavior of deer. A Mississippi study reported that, as the number of
hunters at bait sites increased, the daylight activity of the bucks at the sites decreased. That study noted that
bucks used the bait stations during only 10 percent of the legal shooting hours. This suggests that human5
disturbance affected deer activity more so than the use of bait (Wegner 1993, as cited in Michigan Dept. of
Natural Resources 1993).

HABITAT
Deer baiting may also affect surrounding habitats. Any concentration of large herbivores can damage habitat,
although one study suggested that deer browsing may increase smooth sumac production (Strauss 1991).
Examples of negative habitat changes are the severe damages that have occurred on private club lands,
resulting in changes in tree species composition, retarded forest regeneration, and delayed development of
stands (Michigan DNR 1993). Ullrey observed that a food supplement block caused deer to concentrate in
the vicinity of the block and speculated that this may increase deer damage to the natural vegetation in the
area (D. Ullrey, MSU, Animal Science Dept., E. Lansing, MI, letter in DNR files, Jan. 26, 1993). Damage
on public land is primarily localized and has not created severe damage, with the exception of cedar swamps.
Northern white cedar is sensitive to browsing and long-term damage may result to stands due to deer
browsing. Effects of baiting due to concentrating large numbers of deer may not be easily measured,
especially when the deer population is growing concurrently. The increased amount of food available
through baiting may also positively effect reproduction rates, especially when combined with supplemental
feeding. This may raise population levels much higher than the natural habitat can support. Maintaining deer
populations within limits of the habitat carrying capacity probably is the single-most effective means of
reducing density dependent problems including infectious diseases (Davidson 1981).

INFLUENCE OF BAITING ON HUNTER SUCCESS
While a majority of respondents who used bait felt the use of bait increased their chance of harvesting a deer,
most studies show baiting to be only slightly more effective in harvesting deer. A 1999 phone survey
conducted by the DNR reported that in Deer Management Unit (DMU) 452, 44 percent were successful
using bait, while 52 percent were successful without bait. Winterstein (1992) reported that hunters using bait
were 20 percent more effective in harvesting deer (3.8 deer harvested per 100 days of hunting) than those
who did not use bait (3.1 deer per 100 days of hunting). In the 1984 survey (Langenau et al. 1985), hunters
who used bait were no more effective in harvesting deer (2.4 deer per 100 hunter days) than those who did
not use bait (2.2 deer per 100 hunter days). A 1993 Wisconsin survey found that hunting with bait does not
increase a hunter's success rate compared to those that did not use bait. In the survey, exactly one-half of
the hunters who used bait during their 1992 gun hunts bagged a deer while 54 percent of the hunters who did
not use bait bagged a deer (Wisconsin Bureau of Wildlife Management 1993). These findings are not
consistent over all geographic areas, however. A Texas study reported higher success rates, reduced kill
distances, more deer observed, and less time required to harvest a deer when hunting over bait (Synatzske
1981). These results should be interpreted with caution because they are not consistent with results of
surveys conducted in the north, and they may not be applicable in Michigan.
Because of higher harvest rates over baited sites in Texas, Synatzske (1981) suggested that baiting was an
effective tool for increasing the harvest of deer in areas where higher deer harvest is needed. A restriction on
baiting in Michigan may affect the effectiveness of deer control in urban areas of the state. For example,6
Oakland County parks uses deer "shooting stations" to control hunter movements. The stations allow
specific shooting areas and distances that hunters may shoot deer to assure that shots are taken in a safe
direction and to maximize the harvest. Bait is used to attract deer to the area in which it is safe to shoot (T.
Payne, DNR Wildlife Division, Livonia, MI, pers. comm.). Any statewide ban on baiting may have an effect
on how these programs are administered.

SOCIAL ISSUES
Deer baiting has always been legal in Michigan. Historically, there has been little controversy despite the
lack of regulations and restrictions on the practice. However, the practice of using bait to attract deer for
consumptive purposes has become an often-discussed issue in recent years. Because deer baiting has been
a contentious issue, the DNR has monitored hunters' attitudes and behaviors regarding deer baiting through a
series of surveys implemented in 1984, 1987, 1992, and 1993.
At the series of public meetings held in 1995 by the DNR, 59 percent of those polled wanted baiting left as it
was, 18 percent wanted baiting regulated in some way, and 20 percent wanted a ban on baiting. In letters to
the NRC commenting on the issue, 55 percent wanted baiting left as it was, 12 percent wanted baiting
regulated, and 33 percent wanted a ban on baiting (Michigan DNR, unpublished data). Based on this input,
the NRC left baiting unchanged. The 1993 survey of a random sample of deer hunters indicated that only 26
percent of the respondents wanted baiting left as it was, 44 percent approved of some method to restrict
baiting, and 28 percent wanted baiting banned in the state (unpublished data, B. Peyton, MSU, East Lansing,
MI). However, opinions were divided on what manner of restriction to use. The most popular restriction
found on the survey was to limit quantities of bait allowed on public lands.
Baiting has increased steadily among Michigan hunters. In 1984, only 29 percent of deer hunters reported
using bait (Langenau et al. 1985); 41 percent reported using bait to hunt deer in 1991 (Winterstein 1992).
In 1993, 56 percent of respondents reported using bait to hunt deer (Minnis and Peyton 1994). Archery
hunters use bait at a higher rate than firearm hunters; 71 percent reported using bait during at least part of the
season compared to 53 percent of firearm hunters (Minnis and Peyton 1994).
Just over half (53 percent) of the respondents in the 1993 survey believed that baiting in Michigan should
remain legal, whereas 29 percent believed that deer baiting in Michigan should be banned (Minnis and
Peyton 1994). People who had hunted deer over bait were asked to rate the importance of seven
statements as reasons for hunting deer over bait. Nearly three-fourths of those who baited reported that
baiting is more exciting because they can watch more deer and other wildlife, and 63 percent reported that
they have a better chance to harvest a deer by baiting than with other methods. About one out of five (22
percent) deer baiters reported that the need to compete with other hunters using bait was a very important
reason for deer baiting.


----------



## Ron Gilmore (Jan 7, 2003)

These are just summaries of a couple reports that where listed on the WI DNR site. There are others as well. Full reports which get into detail in regards to the count increases are available as well.

One note in MI is that terrain has been the biggest limiting factor on its spreading. However it is recognized that if it gets into more open areas where deer movement is less restricted, spread of the disease in the herd and into livestock would increase dramatically just as it has done in a short period of time in MN!


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

Ron what you keep referencing is nothing more than a opinion statement. From your own post - "The strongest hypothesis proposed by scientists involved with the problem is that the maintenance of
bovine TB in Michigan white-tailed deer is directly related to supplemental feeding/baiting". A hypothesis is nothing more than a suggested explanation and is not a scientific study. All they have done is gather as much information/opinions as possible and issued a hypothesis which can only be confirmed or rejected after a controlled study is conducted. I don't see anywhere that a controlled scientific study has been conducted and to present the information as such is not accurate.

All I'm saying is before jumping on someone else's wagon it would be wise to know where it is going. Otherwise you may end up looking like Al Gore and who wants that. Could be the information is correct. It could also be it is not correct. Please don't make the mistake of thinking I am arguing for or against the use of bait piles. I am simply trying to force out truthful data instead of the biased opinions that are often used as fact, when in fact that is not the case.


----------



## northdakotakid (May 12, 2004)

Let's think of this in another light... like Plainsman mentioned all baiting is not considered bad... in trapping anything over 1 pound is considered a threat to other wildlife.

In that case if the size of the pile was regulated would it not satisfy both parties??

I can see both sides but as said before... this is nothing more than a morality badge contest. Those who are pure sportsman(no bait) and those that are tainted(baiters).

*Would the "Baiter Haters" be fine with regulating the size of bait piles?

Would those who bait be fine with regulating bait size?

Seriously, is there any other way to prove both sides right and comprimise?*


----------



## hunt4P&amp;Y (Sep 23, 2004)

I was gone for 4 days I really missed alot.

I had a couple questions directed at me. I can't remember all of them, so shoot.

As for some of the stuff I read. I was saying that if ND DNR is worried about a little 5 gal bucket size pile of bait, how will they allow hundreds of thousands of bushels of corn on the ground? If they are saying it is going to be outlawed because of the spread of disease... well they are plain old using an excuse.

So if they allow the farmers to keep these piles on the ground...... and they aren't "bait" piles.... it will be legal to hunt them correct??? Because they aren't "bait" piles, and they are just storage areas....

I am not trying to say that this would be the right thing to do, however trying to explain how if this is there mind set it is flat out crazy.

Anyone see what I am saying?


----------



## Savage260 (Oct 21, 2007)

I guess I must have read all that stuff wrong. I thought in order to make a scientific law you must first propose a hypothesis, then test your hypothesis using controls and variables. It looks like these studies are doing a pretty good job of testing the hypothesis. If this really was an ethics issue I wouldn't be in support of it because I do use small "baitpiles" by my deer stand (placed in an area where I see many deer, so I don't think I am a dumb/rookie hunter) so the deer stop for a sec or 2 and I can take a better, more ethical shot. Even if this only slows down the spread of disease why would you not be for it? Regulating bait piles in no way hinders hunting, nor does it hurt any business like the high fence measure would. It looks to me like a win/win situation.


----------



## holmsvc (Nov 26, 2003)

northdakotakid said:


> *Would the "Baiter Haters" be fine with regulating the size of bait piles?
> 
> Would those who bait be fine with regulating bait size?
> 
> Seriously, is there any other way to prove both sides right and comprimise?*


I have been at few meetings when the G&F has talked about this in the past and at the time they would like a total ban. They thought it would be to hard to regulate and amount.


----------



## cwoparson (Aug 23, 2007)

laite319 that is absolutely correct. Now I don't know what a scientific law is but I know what a scientific study is and what I am seeking is a link to a scientific study, not a hypothesis/opinion published by the MDNR which is what I think is being presented and passed off as a actual controlled study. Maybe this information is actually based on a controlled study but no one seems to be able to produce one and if you stop and think about it, the time, money, and personnel involved to actually do a study of this type in the wild would be staggering. Guesstimates and opinions may be the best we will ever get to.

Stop and think about this, if these super large bait piles on the ground were such a danger and were actually spreading a disease, wouldn't just as many if not more of the ranchers/farmers cattle become infected also? They are eating from the same piles and if it is all about the small piles such as what you mentioned, how would they know unless they tested those small piles of corn? If the concern is winter feeding in deer yards then the solution is to simply stop winter feeding and let mother nature continue controlling the population as she has done since the beginning of time. Things just don't seem to add up to me right now. A total ban coupled with the stopping of deer yard feeding may be the best solution to see if there is a change in the spread of a disease or not.


----------



## Chuck Smith (Feb 22, 2005)

I did not read through all the post on this page. Too long and I dont have the time today.

ANyway....one way this will be an enforcement nightmare is the situation that a DNR in MN that I talked with. Baiting is illegal in MN. Ok here is the situation he encountered.

He came across a homemade "Bird Feeder" that was off the ground but spilled out corn. Yep it was a deer feeder the guy made but is calling it a bird feeder because it is X number of feet off the ground. Yep. Now think of all of these type of situations that will occur. The guy said he is not feeding deer. He is feeding squirrels and birds. even though his deer stand is in close proximity.

People will find ways to skirt the law.


----------



## Trapper62 (Mar 3, 2003)

cwoparson, you and laite319 are correct on the Scientific Method, these are opinions/hypothesis and nothing more.

As far as cattle becoming infected, there is no data to show or confirm cross-contamination between species when discussing CWD, TB Yes. CWD is naturally occurring in about 3% (somewhere under 5%, not sure exact %) of the wild deer and elk populaitons.

Nebraska Game and Parks Commission has quite a little on CWD, but no scientific data, as you stated it is a *best guess*. This is from their sites FAQ's page, they have had CWD in Nebraska since 1999. This department comment doesn't seem to say much against baiting other than to reinforce (IMO) that it is an ethics or management issue, not a disease issue.

*I hear that shooting deer over bait is now illegal. Can I use food plots? Can I bait/feed outside of deer season?*

A Game and Parks regulation passed earlier this year governs hunting over bait. NGPC used its authority over hunting to make it illegal to hunt within 200 yards of an area that has been baited during the past 60 days. Food plots are legal at all times of the year. Baiting and feeding of deer is also legal, but hunting over bait is not legal. Considering the risks associated with baiting and the possibility of spreading CWD and other disease organisms, NGPC believes it prudent that hunters and landowners stop all baiting and feeding of deer and elk. We believe that baiting, mineral blocks, feed piles used by deer all increase the odds of disease transmission. While the method of CWD disease transmission is not known, the best guess is that nose to nose contact increases the risk.

Not sure how this law will reduce nose-to-nose contact?

*Can the Disease Spread to Other Animals, Such As Cattle? *

Again, there is no indication or scientific evidence that the disease can spread to species other than deer or elk, but research in this area continues. Studies have shown that cattle placed in close and confined proximity with infected deer and elk have not developed the disease.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

holmsvc said:


> northdakotakid said:
> 
> 
> > *Would the "Baiter Haters" be fine with regulating the size of bait piles?
> ...


I know they say that, but I think it's bs. It would be no tougher regulating that than checking if a farmer left the pile or a hunter was hunting illegally. From a biological point of view disease will spread as readily from a farmer leaving grain piled as a hunter piling grain intentionally. Outlaw it all or leave the hunters alone. 
I don't bait unless I am after walleye, but I don't have a problem with it either. I don't see it as any less of a hunt than planting a food plot. 
This isn't much different than the eternal argument I hear from traditional archers against compounds. I recently purchased a very nice custom longbow and really enjoy it. I haven't touched my compound for a month, but I don't tell many of my friends. The reason I don't is because we so often run into traditional bowhunters who are not even civilized when talking with compound shooters. There is no doubt I will be switching to more tradition, but I will not join the hate club. 
Our biggest threat to hunting is money. When money gets involved with hunting it normally shafts someone. I am against high fence operations, not because I am against a hunting method, but because it isn't hunting, and money drives it at the expense of our reputation. 
The reality on my brothers farm is a oak with a real heavy mast will draw more deer than the bait piles (five gallon) I have seen. In that light I have nothing against the small bait piles, but I don't like the huge 50 to 100 bushel bait piles. These piles are driven by greed of money, or dislike of fellow hunters. They are intended as much to take away from others as they are to lure for themselves. Regulate the size of the bait pile. If you want to further reduce disease risk require a bait spreader. Even 50 gallons in a bait spreader isn't intended to take away from others.


----------



## Drakekiller (Apr 3, 2002)

Go to the NDG&F web site and check out the baiting video. Some parts of the video could also be used for shooting big game inside of high fences.


----------



## catfisherman2 (Apr 17, 2008)

The Game and Fish are responding to what is currently occuring with large, large piles of screenings set forth, within ND, to attrach deer...it almost reflects "fences." Deer eat haybales, corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and pretty much what goat eats. The attraction is the "large" piles of grains accompanied by hunting blinds...I believe that is the issue. Baiting any animal is not what they call "fair chase" according to prior issues, or is it? Baiting is an attraction of which will keep an animal within a central location...everything needs to eat. The problem with these huge piles of grains is that they pull the deer towards the heavily posted areas and away from the PLOTS and Wildlife Management Areas...as well as the land that is not posted. Then you guys complain about how there are no deer to be found and there is too much posted land. So you are actually supporting what you disapprove of really? Blowing this subject out of context is how these things always go. I guess stop pissing and moaning because you can't find that "trophy" meat deer.


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

catfisherman2 said:


> The Game and Fish are responding to what is currently occuring with large, large piles of screenings set forth, within ND, to attrach deer...it almost reflects "fences." Deer eat haybales, corn, soybeans, alfalfa, and pretty much what goat eats. The attraction is the "large" piles of grains accompanied by hunting blinds...I believe that is the issue. Baiting any animal is not what they call "fair chase" according to prior issues, or is it? Baiting is an attraction of which will keep an animal within a central location...everything needs to eat. The problem with these huge piles of grains is that they pull the deer towards the heavily posted areas and away from the PLOTS and Wildlife Management Areas...as well as the land that is not posted. Then you guys complain about how there are no deer to be found and there is too much posted land. So you are actually supporting what you disapprove of really? Blowing this subject out of context is how these things always go. I guess stop pissing and moaning because you can't find that "trophy" meat deer.


huh? :huh: ?


----------

