# Dr. Bill Jensen on Baiting Big Game/HB1039



## Dick Monson (Aug 12, 2002)

Personal Thoughts on House Bill 1039: The High Cost of Not Banning Deer Baiting.

One of the things about our society that disturbs me is that there seems to be this collective opinion that we as individuals can do anything we want and if things get screwed up, well there is an easy "technological fix" somewhere out there. And "The Government" can pay for cleaning up the mess. Unfortunately, when it comes to diseases, particularly diseases in free ranging wild animals, there is no quick and easy "fix".

I took the morning off last Thursday and sat in on the hearing for HB 1039. The testimony provided by both the North Dakota Game and Fish Department and the State Veterinarians office both outlined the disease concerns, as well as other detrimental affects of baiting. Even some of the proponents of baiting (Hunting Guides) said that if a disease gets into the states deer herd we should ban baiting. The argument given by the proponents was basically that: "Game and Fish was monitoring the deer population and they had not found anything yet, so why worry?"

A big part of the problem is that this is not some laboratory experiment where we can control all of the factors; there are limits as to what can and can not be done and expected from sampling. Over the past five years the North Dakota Game and Fish Department has averaged spending about $100,000 each year to sample 1,500 to 3,000 deer heads around the state in eight surveillance units. The goal is to sample 458 deer in each unit in order to be able to detect a disease present at a rate of 1% with a certainty of 99%. With this approach the Game and Fish Department can sample the entire state on a two to three year rotation. This is a lot of work, but what does that really mean? Can a disease be present and still be undetected? The short answer is yes.

Let's take for example surveillance unit 2 in the northeastern portion of the state. This surveillance unit includes hunting units 1, 2C, 2D, 2E, and 2L. In 2005 a total of 17,619 deer were harvested in surveillance unit 2. Assuming that the disease in question is spread evenly throughout the population (note: most diseases are clumped around hot spots, such as the cattle herds in northeastern Minnesota infected with TB), and assuming all the animals were all adults with an equal chance at exposure (again, not the case with many fawns among the harvested animals), about 88 deer could be in the harvested population (a prevalence rate of just 0.5% or half the surveillance rate) and the disease could go undetected. Now multiple those 88 infected dead deer by some proportion to determine the number of potentially infected live animals still running around (let's not complicate the math with the issues of random distribution and age). In short, there could potentially be hundreds of live deer, infected with the disease of your choice, in a surveillance unit at prevalence rate below the radar screen, and we would not be able to detect it. And it would be another two to three years before the Game and Fish was scheduled to sample that surveillance unit again!

Some might say the state just needs to sample more, perhaps every hunting unit every year. OK, that would only cost somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000. Now where is that money going to come from? What programs are eliminated to shift staff to those new responsibilities? Once a disease becomes established it is even more costly to get rid of it. Michigan has spent decades and more than $250 million trying to get rid of TB in their deer. Wisconsin has spent more than $30 million since 2002 trying to eradicate CWD in their state. I have not even mentioned the cost to the states' agricultural industry if North Dakota looses its TB free status.

The bottom line is that the North Dakota Game and Fish Department is doing the best it can to detect the presents of diseases. So far it has not detected the presence of CWD or TB. Does that mean there could not be isolated pockets of these diseases that could go undetected for several years in the state? No. The most rationale approach for dealing with such diseases is to be proactive and do the easy things first. Will eliminating baiting eliminate the potential of TB or CWD from coming into and spreading within North Dakota? No. Will requiring that medical staff to wash their hands before going from one patient to another eliminate the potential of diseases coming into and spreading within a hospital? No, but I for one would not go to a medical facility that did not require all staff to wash their hands. Would you?

Free ranging white-tailed deer in northeastern Minnesota have now become infected with TB from cattle brought north from Texas. These deer are within 50 miles of the North Dakota border. How long do we have to wait before we take action and wash our hands of this issue?

Thomas Jefferson once said about religious beliefs:

"But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg."

To many North Dakotans deer hunting is somewhat of a religious experience. Allowing deer baiting to continue not only picks the pockets of ALL North Dakotans, it takes the legs out from under the state agencies responsible for managing this very difficult issue. What possible good will come from waiting? Now is the time for good governance and statesmanship.

Do the right thing. Do the easy thing. Ban the baiting of big game now.

Respectfully,

Dr. William Jensen

1310 North 16th Street

Bismarck, ND 58501

701-255-6386

cc: District 35, Senate and House Natural Resource Committee members


----------



## adokken (Jan 28, 2003)

My personal hope is that it will be banned, but knowing the clout the outfitters have I will be surprised if the ban goes into effect. It would end some of our local outfitters leasing all the prime deer territory. Who will pay $2500 dollars to sit in stand in the middle of nowhere with no deer.They buy screenings by the truck load and dump it in piles by the stands. About all it has accomplished is discourage locals from hunting due to access problems.


----------



## Curt Wells (Jan 13, 2003)

adokken,

BINGO!!


----------



## 4CurlRedleg (Aug 31, 2003)

> Some might say the state just needs to sample more, perhaps every hunting unit every year. OK, that would only cost somewhere between $500,000 and $1,000,000. Now where is that money going to come from? What programs are eliminated to shift staff to those new responsibilities? Once a disease becomes established it is even more costly to get rid of it. Michigan has spent decades and more than $250 million trying to get rid of TB in their deer. Wisconsin has spent more than $30 million since 2002 trying to eradicate CWD in their state. I have not even mentioned the cost to the states' agricultural industry if North Dakota looses its TB free status.


That is quite an interesting statistic.


----------



## Dak (Feb 28, 2005)

excellent note doc


----------

