TB and Deer numbers -

[Nimrod1]

I think that their numbers are probably pretty good, within +/- 5% or so. One of the reasons that a lot of people in the NLP are not seeing deer is that not only is the herd down from the 2.1 - 2.3 million deer that it was in the early to mid 90's but the distribution of the remaining deer continues to shift towards the south. Is the population in the NLP down, sure it is compared to what it used to be. On the other hand TB has been pretty well contained and is no longer a major threat to our herd outside of the core counties. I would say the TB plan worked pretty well in that regard.
:yeahthat: :yeahthat:
All I have it add is that the deer densities of the 90's probably were not very good for the habitat. The numbers were achieved through massive amounts of supplemental feeding. All of which combined to put the herd at risk for a disease outbreak. Even though currently I only have a deer density of about 12-15/sq mile to hunt, given the apparent control of TB I think the DNR has been spot on.

[marty]

:yeahthat: :yeahthat:
All I have it add is that the deer densities of the 90's probably were not very good for the habitat. The numbers were achieved through massive amounts of supplemental feeding. All of which combined to put the herd at risk for a disease outbreak. Even though currently I only have a deer density of about 12-15/sq mile to hunt, given the apparent control of TB I think the DNR has been spot on.


You know I wonder about this baiting causing the spread of TB. The so called baiting ban which has been in place for a while has not worked. A lot of people still bait yet the TB rate falls. A CO this year told me he figures 90% of the county still baits. With all the baiting that been going on over the years seems to me the TB rates should have shot through the roof.:confused:

Also we had one of the countys biggest baiters right down the road with semi-loads brought in every year but we've never had a positive in this area. Another question I have is why doesn't the DNR ban it statewide? With the CWD knocking on our door why if baiting does cause the spread of diseases why even take the chance?

I have a pretty good idea that politics are in the mix of this. I also think the farm lobby plays a part in this. You know the old saying " have your cake and eat it too:yikes: . Just a few thoughts .....m

[Munsterlndr]

You know I wonder about this baiting causing the spread of TB. The so called baiting ban which has been in place for a while has not worked. A lot of people still bait yet the TB rate falls. A CO this year told me he figures 90% of the county still baits. With all the baiting that been going on over the years seems to me the TB rates should have shot through the roof.:confused:

Also we had one of the countys biggest baiters right down the road with semi-loads brought in every year but we've never had a positive in this area. Another question I have is why doesn't the DNR ban it statewide? With the CWD knocking on our door why if baiting does cause the spread of diseases why even take the chance?

I have a pretty good idea that politics are in the mix of this. I also think the farm lobby plays a part in this. You know the old saying " have your cake and eat it too:yikes: . Just a few thoughts .....m

Baiting in and of itself does not cause TB it just creates conditions which can help spread the disease, through nose to nose and saliva contact. If the disease is not present in the population, in a specific area, a two ton bait pile is not going to cause TB to appear. While baiting may still be occuring in the TB area my guess is that it is in pretty small amounts. If a hunter puts out a few dozen apples, they are probably going to be consumed within a few hours and by only a few deer. This presents much less opportunity than a two ton pile of sugar beets, that get nibbled on by dozens of deer over a couple of week period.

Why has baiting not been banned? I think that is a pretty simple answer. A majority of hunters still approve it's use. I'm sure there is some farm lobby pressure, too. If CWD does cometo Michigan the NRC has already stated that it would be the end of baiting, period.

I think the DNR did a good job of containing an outbreak that could have destroyed deer hunting in Michigan. I see a lot of hunters complaining about the lack of deer being created by "DNR mis-management". This was not mis-management it was the intended result of the TB containment strategy. It was so effective that most of those hunters who are complaining about the lack of deer don't even remember the potential problem that TB posed to hunting in Michigan, just a few short years ago.

[Nimrod1]

Very well put Munsterlndr.

Marty, please take note of the fact that I did state that "baiting" caused the spread of TB. I said that "supplemental feeding" helped to set the stage.

Thanks

[marty]

Please re read my thread I stated that it cause the spread of TB not that baiting cause TB. Like I stated before baiting still exist with a lot of sugar beets being the prefered bait according to my daughter in law that works at a place that sells bait. Beets last longer and can't be seen easily from the air. Carrots are least favored because of the color.

You also stated baiting allowed because it's want hunters want. I beg to differ it what the farmers want. Where do you think all that bait comes from? Farms of course. To totally stop baiting would hurt the farmers pocket book I will agree on that point.

Again I ask that you re-read my thread about the spread of TB. I also wonder why we should wait til CWD gets here. Kinda of silly don't yoiu think?? Sort of closing the gate after the horse left.......M;)

Nimrod does it really matter whether is baiting or feeding if a deer is positive he/she could spread it at anytime of the year correct??......M

[Nimrod1]

Marty,
Why don't you start a new thread, before the "OFF TOPIC" police nab us!:yikes: :lol: :lol: :lol:

[Munsterlndr]

You also stated baiting allowed because it's want hunters want. I beg to differ it what the farmers want. Where do you think all that bait comes from? Farms of course. To totally stop baiting would hurt the farmers pocket book I will agree on that point.

Again I ask that you re-read my thread about the spread of TB. I also wonder why we should wait til CWD gets here. Kinda of silly don't yoiu think?? Sort of closing the gate after the horse left.......M;)


I'd agree that the farmers who want to sell bait want to continue doing so but every poll or survey that I have seen also shows that a majority of hunters still are in favor of legal baiting, as well.

As far as why ban baiting if CWD arrives and not for TB? Well, I'm guessing it is because TB has been around for a long time and we have a pretty good handle on how it's spread and the potential hazard that it poses to both cervids and humans. If it spreads to humans it is treatable and usually won't result in death. CWD is a completely different kettle of fish. How it is spread, how the disease works and the impact on humans is not really understood. While it has not been documented in humans several closely related diseases have been, specifically Creutzfeld-Jakub disease, and they are very, very bad news. Not treatable and 100% fatal. So I think it's kind of natural to take a much harder line in the defense against CWD as opposed to TB.

[Nimrod1]

Marty,
I think it's obvious that it's the hunters that want the baiting. Would you spend your money, and use bait just because a farmer wanted you to? I think not. Hunters happily part with their cash, because THEY want to bait.

I believe you are correct about TB being able to be spread at a bait pile as well as at a supplemental feeding location. What I was refering to was that the supplemental feeding was used to increase the carrying capacity of the habitat, there by increasing the numbers of deer well beyond a natural state. Since the habitat was unable to support all the extra deer, they were forced to be a slave to the feed troughs.

[marty]

Marty,
I
I believe you are correct about TB being able to be spread at a bait pile as well as at a supplemental feeding location. What I was refering to was that the supplemental feeding was used to increase the carrying capacity of the habitat, there by increasing the numbers of deer well beyond a natural state. Since the habitat was unable to support all the extra deer, they were forced to be a slave to the feed troughs.


As hunters wanted to bait I believe it's the competion thing that goes on. You know how it starts that guys got a pile so I have to toss down a few beets to compete and of course a lot of farmers would loose a chunk of income if baiting was ban state wide. There's a place in Alpena that sells it by the bulk load. Just think about all the places on us-23 coming north that sell bait. Heck I even heard a rumor a while back the head of the NRC ( Keith Charters) got nabbed for baiting Don't know how true but if so :yikes:

Yepper but here's a thought I've had the fellows at a local seed mill told me his seed business has shot through the roof since the baiting ban. Without starting ww3 do you think with everybody improving the habitat would increase numbers as well?? I know people will say food plots are natural but still if I planted lots of food plots I could very easily increase carrying capacity as well. Especially around large chunks of land who won't shoot every deer they. Maybe that's why the great majority of TB is around the hunt clubs area:confused:

I still like to get an answer from the experts if that TB is spread through bait piles why hasn't TB rate went up? It doesn't take a harvard degree to know that baiting /feeding still happens up in the TB zone. Another thought with a small pile being on the ground wouldn't that draw more nose to nose contact that a bigger pile? Enquiring minds want to know lol...m:lol:

[Nimrod1]

As hunters wanted to bait I believe it's the competion thing that goes on. You know how it starts that guys got a pile so I have to toss down a few beets to compete and of course a lot of farmers would loose a chunk of income if baiting was ban state wide. There's a place in Alpena that sells it by the bulk load. Just think about all the places on us-23 coming north that sell bait. Heck I even heard a rumor a while back the head of the NRC ( Keith Charters) got nabbed for baiting Don't know how true but if so :yikes:

Yepper but here's a thought I've had the fellows at a local seed mill told me his seed business has shot through the roof since the baiting ban. Without starting ww3 do you think with everybody improving the habitat would increase numbers as well?? I know people will say food plots are natural but still if I planted lots of food plots I could very easily increase carrying capacity as well. Especially around large chunks of land who won't shoot every deer they. Maybe that's why the great majority of TB is around the hunt clubs area:confused:

I still like to get an answer from the experts if that TB is spread through bait piles why hasn't TB rate went up? It doesn't take a harvard degree to know that baiting /feeding still happens up in the TB zone. Another thought with a small pile being on the ground wouldn't that draw more nose to nose contact that a bigger pile? Enquiring minds want to know lol...m:lol:

The desire to bait may be rooted in competion, but no one forces the first hunter to buy the bait. By the way no one has ever forced me to buy bait, but I have.

Your right about the farmers standing to lose some income if baiting came to a complete halt. I agree that some of the food plotters, and I do some, are looking to increase the carrying capacity of the habitat. They are also trying to make their property more appealing to the deer, than the rest of the neighborhood, which is my main reason.

Just a guess, but I think that even though baiting continues at some level, it is at a level that is lower than in the past. There may still be some baiting, or even a significant amount in certain areas as you claim. The supplemental feeding during non-hunting seasons, has been drastically reduced. Combined with lower overall deer numbers, it all has helped to slow/eliminate the spread of TB.

As long as we keep enquiring, we will find out.;)

[marty]

I'd agree that the farmers who want to sell bait want to continue doing so but every poll or survey that I have seen also shows that a majority of hunters still are in favor of legal baiting, as well.


As far as why ban baiting if CWD arrives and not for TB? Well, I'm guessing it is because TB has been around for a long time and we have a pretty good handle on how it's spread and the potential hazard that it poses to both cervids and humans. If it spreads to humans it is treatable and usually won't result in death. CWD is a completely different kettle of fish. How it is spread, how the disease works and the impact on humans is not really understood. While it has not been documented in humans several closely related diseases have been, specifically Creutzfeld-Jakub disease, and they are very, very bad news. Not treatable and 100% fatal. So I think it's kind of natural to take a much harder line in the defense against CWD as opposed to TB.

Yep legal baiting yes but as I posted for nim do you think smaller illegal bait piles in the zone are worse than bigger piles IMO. Seems like there'd be more contact/competion for the little food that's on the ground. Yes I seen the same pole about the baiting issue a 50/50 spilt but somebody posted before it's not called the dept of hunters satisfaction:lol: Again I feel poltics are in the way.:mad:

I don't think we really have a solid clue on how it spreads as I stated before with all the baiting that goes on shouldn't TB rates skyrocket if nose to nose contact( coughing sneezing) cause the spread. Also as you stated with CWD not being totally understood how it spreads why wouldn't you take all the steps and precations to prevent it from happening at all.

Just like the way it jump over us from wisconsin clean over to west virginia?? Wonder how that happen??:confused: Like you said before yes the powers to be will stop all baiting once or if ( heaven help us) CWD hits Michigan but isn't that kind of a bad idea?? Again trying to put out a forest fire with a water pistol:yikes: or closing the gate after the horse has left:lol:

Just some food for thought......m;)

[Munsterlndr]

I still like to get an answer from the experts if that TB is spread through bait piles why hasn't TB rate went up? It doesn't take a harvard degree to know that baiting /feeding still happens up in the TB zone. Another thought with a small pile being on the ground wouldn't that draw more nose to nose contact that a bigger pile? Enquiring minds want to know lol...m:lol:

The TB rate has gone down because the deer density in the TB area is a fraction of what it used to be so there are a lot less deer both to carry TB and to be exposed to it. Also, while baiting may still occur, the quantities are much smaller. A smaller bait pile is going to be consumed by one or two deer. I use bait in front of my trail cam during the fall (I'm not in the TB area) and it often shows the small bucket of apples that I put out being eaten by just a couple of deer. The problem with the bigger piles, especially with sugar beets and carrots is that multiple deer will gnaw on the same beet over a few days or a few weeks. This increases the potential for spreading the disease. I would guess that apples and corn are not as prone to provide a good platform for spreading disease because they get consumed quicker but this is just a guess.

There is always going to be a small level of TB positive deer in the herd but the measures that the DNR have taken at least have prevented a widespread epidemic.

[Nimrod1]

There is always going to be a small level of TB positive deer in the herd but the measures that the DNR have taken at least have prevented a widespread epidemic.

May be just a pipe dream of mine, but I hope your wrong about this. Even though there is evidence of the TB having been in the herd for a long time, I hope that it can be totally eradicated! I do however agree that the DNR has headed off what could have been a much worse epidemic.

[Munsterlndr]

May be just a pipe dream of mine, but I hope your wrong about this. Even though there is evidence of the TB having been in the herd for a long time, I hope that it can be totally eradicated! I do however agree that the DNR has headed off what could have been a much worse epidemic.

I hope I'm wrong, too but there are a couple of problems. It is not only in the deer population but it's been found in coons, yotes, foxes, etc. While there is not a huge prospect for these other animals passing it on to deer it might happen. Also, TB does not always kill the host animal. A deer can test positive and spread the disease but not suffer any debilitating effects from it. This makes it harder to eradicate because that deer might be around for a number of years spreading the disease.

[marty]

The TB rate has gone down because the deer density in the TB area is a fraction of what it used to be so there are a lot less deer both to carry TB and to be exposed to it. Also, while baiting may still occur, the quantities are much smaller. A smaller bait pile is going to be consumed by one or two deer. I use bait in front of my trail cam during the fall (I'm not in the TB area) and it often shows the small bucket of apples that I put out being eaten by just a couple of deer. The problem with the bigger piles, especially with sugar beets and carrots is that multiple deer will gnaw on the same beet over a few days or a few weeks. This increases the potential for spreading the disease. I would guess that apples and corn are not as prone to provide a good platform for spreading disease because they get consumed quicker but this is just a guess.

There is always going to be a small level of TB positive deer in the herd but the measures that the DNR have taken at least have prevented a widespread epidemic.


Good point but you only had one small bait pile think of all the small piles that exist and you're talking a lot more bait. A fellow I know hunted state land off f-30 He said it made him nervous to sit out there with all the bait piles around him:lol:

Like you say though they have been sucessful in prevented from spreading but they found the first case in the mid 70's(74)? I believe and it didn't spread to far. So say 20 years it was right out there in the woods and never seem to stray that far. In the amount of time it should have been spreading like wild fire but it seems to be isolated to the core area ( 452)

As I stated before we got one of the countys biggest baiter/feeders just down the road and we never had any TB in this area. It still seems to be mainly around hunt club area. It if didn't spread that far in 20 odd years seems strange to me that it would stay mainly in one area.
Just my 2..........m;)

[Nimrod1]

I hope I'm wrong, too but there are a couple of problems. It is not only in the deer population but it's been found in coons, yotes, foxes, etc. While there is not a huge prospect for these other animals passing it on to deer it might happen. Also, TB does not always kill the host animal. A deer can test positive and spread the disease but not suffer any debilitating effects from it. This makes it harder to eradicate because that deer might be around for a number of years spreading the disease.
I believe there has been at least 1 bear with it also.
I heard an "off the record" comment that the DNR would never support a QDM initiative in the TB area due to the fact that the segment of the deer population with the highest incidence of TB is the mature buck population.
But hey, it's my pipe dream!

[GVDocHoliday]

Baiting in and of itself does not cause TB it just creates conditions which can help spread the disease, through nose to nose and saliva contact. If the disease is not present in the population, in a specific area, a two ton bait pile is not going to cause TB to appear. While baiting may still be occuring in the TB area my guess is that it is in pretty small amounts. If a hunter puts out a few dozen apples, they are probably going to be consumed within a few hours and by only a few deer. This presents much less opportunity than a two ton pile of sugar beets, that get nibbled on by dozens of deer over a couple of week period.

Why has baiting not been banned? I think that is a pretty simple answer. A majority of hunters still approve it's use. I'm sure there is some farm lobby pressure, too. If CWD does cometo Michigan the NRC has already stated that it would be the end of baiting, period.

I think the DNR did a good job of containing an outbreak that could have destroyed deer hunting in Michigan. I see a lot of hunters complaining about the lack of deer being created by "DNR mis-management". This was not mis-management it was the intended result of the TB containment strategy. It was so effective that most of those hunters who are complaining about the lack of deer don't even remember the potential problem that TB posed to hunting in Michigan, just a few short years ago.


That's probably some of the best reading I've had on this forum.

[marty]

I believe there has been at least 1 bear with it also.
I heard an "off the record" comment that the DNR would never support a QDM initiative in the TB area due to the fact that the segment of the deer population with the highest incidence of TB is the mature buck population.
But hey, it's my pipe dream!

Don't forget to add a elk with TB as well. Now that would have been cool unlimited elk permits:lol: j/k lol.........m;)

[hunting man]

The first reported TB buck was a 6 point taken in '76. I know the man from Monroe that reported it. He was hunting on the Turtle Lake concession(lease) of the Lincoln club(Mi first and oldest established deer hunting club). More than one elk has been found with TB I believe. Now that Turtle Lake club has a fence around it. We will see if they are the real core area. The deer in that club could go many years without seeing a hunter. Lots of deer could die of old age on that club. Most of the clubs have stopped the doe slaughter and now use MAR of 8 points or more. This could cause another increase in the TB. Time will tell.

Thinking that farmers would lose money if bait was outlawed is a pipe dream. We would just grow another cash crop and market it. Some have used their farms to grow/sell bait crops but dont have to. Thats a choice they make each spring. Each tries to find their own way to make a living farming.

Baiters will find bait to buy no matter what the law says. I see piles on the state land and on the private. Some know no other way to hunt deer. They started hunting after bait was allowed and never hunted without a pile out. Some would consider a ticket just the cost of hunting their way. I noticed a increase in the sale of black sunflower seeds after the bait ban was in effect. It doesnt matter what they bait with it will show up from the air. First snow hits and the deer trails leading to the bait pile will look like the spokes of a wagon wheel. It will point right to the bait pile.

With the DNR using up so many man hours on baiting violations alone. It must hurt their ability to target other forms of poaching. I would like to see them allow small bait piles again. Just so they would be free to roam around looking for other forms of poaching more. Bait will be used no matter what the law says. Private property owners will always think they can do what they want on their land. Right or wrong they will continue to do it.

[marty]

With the DNR using up so many man hours on baiting violations alone. It must hurt their ability to target other forms of poaching. I would like to see them allow small bait piles again. Just so they would be free to roam around looking for other forms of poaching more. Bait will be used no matter what the law says. Private property owners will always think they can do what they want on their land. Right or wrong they will continue to do it.

Hunting man that's something similar to what one of the law enforcement honchos stated at the roscommom meeting something like 60-70% of their time goes to baiting/feeding complaints. I to believe they should let them bait but maybe use spin-feeders only and make them use corn or a grain type product.


This would pacify the baiting crowd and also spread the feed out. Also if you have turkeys in your area they would be more likely to clean up any grain or corn long before the deer get to it.Years ago I seen them come running to my spin-feeders when they would hear it go off.:lol:

Yes I heard that a lot of clubs have stop shooting does as well. A lot of the big clubs have went into the QDM mode but makes you wonder if that's a
good thing or not.

Turtle lake still has a fence around it?? I thought they couldn't put that up?? Did they have to have an opening every some many feet do you know??
Interesting statement about more TB but who knows if those clubs found one would they even report it anyway? As you stated time will tell........m;)

[Ogre]

In 1995 the TB prevalence rate in the core DMU 452 was 4.9% and in 2004 it was 1.7%. This was a widely touted decrease of 64%. This means that on average 5 deer out of a hundred had TB in 1995 and 2 deer in 2004. This might be a statistically significant decrease but lets hold those numbers up to something else. Let's say that the deer numbers over this same period were reduced by 60%. (I believe it to be more.) This means that the TB prevalence rate tracks, to a degree, the rate of reduction of the herd and this makes sense. If we reduced the head one hundred percent the prevalence rate would be reduce by one hundred percent so obviously there is a correlation between the herd size and TB prevalence. But let's get real, 5 out of a hundred to 2 out of 100 in real world terms can be explained by normal cyclical activities and may not be related to the virtual slaughter of the herd. I think it is way to early to draw conclusions and it's way to early to pat everyone on the back for justifying the virtual slaughter of the herd in the core counties. I'm not saying the herd reduction was right or wrong. I'm just saying it hasn't been proven to me that the herd reduction correlates to less TB

[Munsterlndr]

In 1995 the TB prevalence rate in the core DMU 452 was 4.9% and in 2004 it was 1.7%. This was a widely touted decrease of 64%. This means that on average 5 deer out of a hundred had TB in 1995 and 2 deer in 2004. This might be a statistically significant decrease but lets hold those numbers up to something else. Let's say that the deer numbers over this same period were reduced by 60%. (I believe it to be more.) This means that the TB prevalence rate tracks, to a degree, the rate of reduction of the herd and this makes sense. If we reduced the head one hundred percent the prevalence rate would be reduce by one hundred percent so obviously there is a correlation between the herd size and TB prevalence. But let's get real, 5 out of a hundred to 2 out of 100 in real world terms can be explained by normal cyclical activities and may not be related to the virtual slaughter of the herd. I think it is way to early to draw conclusions and it's way to early to pat everyone on the back for justifying the virtual slaughter of the herd in the core counties. I'm not saying the herd reduction was right or wrong. I'm just saying it hasn't been proven to me that the herd reduction correlates to less TB

When was the last new TB positive deer found in a DMU that did not previously have any Positives? The herd decrease may or may not have reduced the incidence within the core counties but it sure seems to have contained the spread fairly effectively.

[marty]

When was the last new TB positive deer found in a DMU that did not previously have any Positives? The herd decrease may or may not have reduced the incidence within the core counties but it sure seems to have contained the spread fairly effectively.


Here you go Munsterlndr. Still don't know what happen to this if it's true but I don't think the DNR every answered this thread Not sure where emmet county is and sure as the devil don't want to wish anyone the kind of crap the great majority of TB zones hunters are living with but never heard anything about this one.......m

http://www.michigan-sportsman.com/forum/showthread.php?t=86095