Wisconson cwd map

Discussion in 'Whitetail Deer Disease' started by dfbear, Dec 3, 2019.

  1. Hunters Edge

    Hunters Edge

    Messages:
    2,960
    Likes Received:
    2,480
    You obviously do not understand by this post. If you do not concentrate deer you are not containing them. If they are not contained they are spreading out into new areas looking for food. When they find it they will become concentrated just from deer social behavior.

    Their is no difference in concentration from putting out apples for bait vs falling from a apple tree. The big difference there is regulation of when you can bait, the size of distribution and the amount. None of these apple to the apple tree or many apple trees from an orchard or abandoned orchard. Each apply tree can produce 6 to 19 bushels each bushel weighs about 42 pounds. If you can keep deer their or concentrated by baiting then feeding you have contained them.
     
  2. Hunters Edge

    Hunters Edge

    Messages:
    2,960
    Likes Received:
    2,480
    It sounds like you do not only understand deer nor the results baiting and feeding can be used to contain them in an area.
     

  3. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,121
    Likes Received:
    20,591
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    Plan within state goal/plan experiment?
    Provide the current definition of the experiment.
    Firstly , it contradicts "known" science of older bucks C.W.D. prevalence rates potential effect on spread of C.W.D.. We follow the course or deviate. And we have deviated.
    IF following the plan ,and Mi. was not exactly free-styling one before or after C.W.D. arrived here when developing a response plan. Until it is proven to not have been arrived at with less than the best known science...Why has the deviation occurred?


    My take on the experiment is that this year(first year intro) should have been a three points per one side restriction . Following education/outreach of deer reduction strategy .
    Bump it up to four the second year. That gives two years to encourage hunters to consider habitat capacity ,and adjust deer numbers to accommodate the bucks carried over.

    Doe reduction plateaued locally.
    If you are not aware (and apologies if you are) , first year under a greater A.P.R. are best odds for hunter participation in doe reduction via compromise /booby prize of a doe vs buck.
    Being prior reductions had occurred , that leaves hunters with lower odds of participation by kills. We'll see how defined the state goes and if it is confirmed ;or if county wide is scale enough...
    A neighboring landowner visited yesterday and there was little difference in observations this season. Confirming my findings are not pulled out of the blue.

    That strategy has been changing annually. With obvious effect on both deer and hunters.
    If constantly changing regulations disallow my forward planning (and they do when managing in attempt to affect a part of a herd for short and long term kill goals) amid a low population following the states previous plan....I'll go back to what I was doing before C.W.D..
    A Franciscan on one side hitting me with a stick and a Jesuit on the other with a club ,both telling me the other is wrong after my baptism....Ya,I'll go back to where I was before.
    It's quieter, understood , and much more predictable.

    Nothing beats pick a number to start. Deer per...No , not by county. By local habitat's.
    Incentive's can be provided by roulette regulations , (not working) by swinging a stick , or patient networking.
    Considering the incentive remaining to cooperate with state whim....Deer numbers will rise again. What did greater reduction than prior trend cause that equals the reasoning for reduction gaining anything for hunters?
    Next year hunters will be hunting the yearlings graduated in en masse this year.
    (The majority or more of yearlings not burdened with four points per a side this year).
    Will hunters reduce doe farther than perceived low enough to effect fawn recruitment negatively affecting future buck production? We'll see. Coyote are in on the game too but not predictable in kill counts as much as post fawn drop timing.

    What would the state change if fawn counts were negligible? What should hunters anticipating future kills change?
    How many fawns survived 2016-19 where I hunt? And for how long?
    4points per side means little to the herd. How many fawns and what older classes of either sex exist in what numbers vs habitat capacity matters more than indecisive game management by the state.

    What would the state have for a number? A number that low (I can use current number here) consisting of what percentage of older bucks vs how many hunters?
    Now we have hunters outnumbering deer. Let alone bucks. Let alone aged bucks.
    That's the plan? What part of it engages hunters again? Oh , the killing doe part.
    Guess the resulting trend already established following prior reduction and hunter awareness of cause and effect.....Go ahead ,if it's not predictable without guessing; it's already been mentioned.
     
    Hunters Edge likes this.
  4. Waif

    Waif

    Messages:
    17,121
    Likes Received:
    20,591
    Location:
    Montcalm Co.
    Let's transfer acceptable to your choice of a half mile of salmon hosting contagious disease water. You will not be fishing elsewhere ,and unlike real salmon ;you have a number that will stay in place and not be added to. That number is thirtyfour.
    For three years you and a dozen other fellow dunkers reduce all age classes ,with a will! Per state incentive of generous and reduced cost limits.
    Then year four you put a slot on males protecting any past smolt stage to two years of age.
    Now , keep fishing. And accept that the majority of your fellow fishermen/woman are targeting buck salmon.
    Hens remain legal and you are encouraged to remove them.
    Spawning viability allows three to four surviving smolts a year.
    Keep fishing!
    Keep killing hens as caught.
    And testing for disease ,if it matters.
    Good viable disease plan?
    Should the state care if you and your company of dunkers are happy?
    Should anyone?
    Now expand the area and dunker numbers. All's well as long as there's a plan ,right?
     
    Hunters Edge likes this.
  5. LuckyBucks

    LuckyBucks

    Messages:
    2,652
    Likes Received:
    8,558
    Location:
    Northern Wisconsin
    Serious question: Once the WI map looks like this (in just a few years), what is the benefit of not baiting?

    Screenshot_20191204-072300_Samsung Internet.jpg
     
  6. swampbuck

    swampbuck

    Messages:
    20,757
    Likes Received:
    10,769
    Location:
    Majinabeesh
    Not really, one of the western states has a pretty good plan for that.

    Sent from my SM-S367VL using Michigan Sportsman mobile app