Michigan Sportsman Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 20 of 120 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,791 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I will start this thread because I'm a skeptic when it comes to baiting and this cwd spread. I read the outwest articles on the elk and what questions me is the disease has been spread without baiting or feedstations, and the worry is when the disease reaches these winter feed stations, that the disease will spread more. I just alwasy thought a "disease" in a herd would always seak out the weak and why has this disease has not been more prevelent in winter areas that concentrate the weak elk..like this but really the areas such as these huge feed areas are seemingly the last ones so far??

I understand the biologic theory behind banning baiting and the prions etc..but people would be hypicrits to think any size foodplot--meant to attract concentrations of feeding wildlife for many months is any different than a baitpile when you are talking about cwd and how the disease works and spreads. My understanding is the threat lies in the baitpile being established over a long period of time in the same location. This is not to compare the advantage food plots have over baitpile arguement, this is about CWD and how the disease is spread and locations that might favor the disease to spread faster and how we as hunters can curb that...and at this point foodplots seems to fall right into that category!

It seems the more I read the less the biologists really know about this disease and how it really spreads or why it doesn't spread faster etc.., I think the knee-jerk reaction on ban baiting is unjustified(read why just "baiting" and not other sources) unless we include the enormous expansion of foodplot we have seen in the last 10 years to be somehow included. If we really want to curb the spread of the disease alot of people need to be open-minded enough to include every sort of factor as small as it may seem to stop the spread. I totally except the banning of bait IF the bio's know that would help, but it sure has this "political feel" to it when foodplots are even mentioned.

Again, I'm not totally sold on ban baiting and cwd relationship, I have this feeling its a great "escape goat" for the ban-baiting crowd and some bio's. Maybe, maybe not...just not totally sold on it..
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,379 Posts
Anyway - the debate about food plots vs baiting is usless as well - until the DNR/NRC change the legal definition of both or one or the other - we have what we have - and we can bang the drums in any order you like - but the back and forth over the issue is pointless until that change is made.

So we have what we have, and we have to deal with what we have, and now what we have is CWD and - and what should do now?

Is the first step in fighting CWD to redefine food plots? Maybe it is, but while we try to decide if it is or not and the ensuing debate over it - CWD could be spreading into a neighborhood near you, or me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,791 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Direwolf-at no point in my wording do I reference "doing nothing about it"....you and others can minimize the debate all you want, including Ferg who just in your first sentence took it totally off track, EXACTLY what I thought would happen when we mention foodplot in any sort of negative light...this is about CWD and the factors/conditions in how its spread and ways to slow it down etc.. NOT an arguement in food plot vs. Baiting again...if it does get a mod to shut it down right now!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,070 Posts
Here are deer at bait:


Deer in a food plot:


Which one looks like a bigger threat to CWD? FWIW, I would support a ban a tuber type food plots where deer leave partially eaten plants that are later eaten by other deer. Which is exactly what occurs at sugar beat and carrot piles. I also don't believe deer contact in a food plot is any more or less then a crop field or natural food source. They all concentrate deer, and contact between deer is unavoidable because it is ingrained in their behavior.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,379 Posts
Maybe I wasn't clear at what I was trying to get across - or didn't word it very well - my point was - maybe now IS the time to make a determination, maybe this is a proper response to CWD?

Wasn't trying to get anyting off topic at all -

ferg....
For the record ferg is NOT a food plot guy or a baiting guy ;)



Direwolf-at no point in my wording do I reference "doing nothing about it"....you and others can minimize the debate all you want, including Ferg who just in your first sentence took it totally off track, EXACTLY what I thought would happen when we mention foodplot in any sort of negative light...this is about CWD and the factors/conditions in how its spread and ways to slow it down etc.. NOT an arguement in food plot vs. Baiting again...if it does get a mod to shut it down right now!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,791 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
Sorry Ferg, just hope it stays on track...

Which one looks like a bigger threat to CWD?
Perfect example, does it have to be a bigger threat or just a threat at all...both were put in to attract deer, ban both!!
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,772 Posts
I would guess that comparisons to food plots and baiting stations should take into consideration the size of the plot/station and the length of time available to the deer. As you decrease the size of the plot, and increase the time available you probably increase the likelihood of disease transmission.
In any case, no one can really argue that a food plot doesn't congregate deer and at least pose some threat of disease transmission.
Ferg ... If the "this is what we have now" logic is the best way to look at any picture than why would we have ever had debates about QDM, One Buck Rule, or even allowing the legalization of crossbows. The obvious answer is that these forums welcome food for thought on upgrade.
<----<<<
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,379 Posts
I have posted on other threads what I 'think' - and that is this:

The DNR had a contingency plan in place (the only plan) in case CWD came walking across the Mi boarders.

Problem with the plan is - it didn't - it came from behind a fence - and - haveing made the statement/commitment in their 'plan' they are stuck with this action. (for now)

I think it was a free ranging plan with a captive trigger - the problem is/was - there was never a 'plan' for this trigger, only the free ranging.

Given some time, as others have said, I believe the baiting/feeding will be back as it's not the proper response to this causation, it's just the only one that they have on hand.

ferg....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,471 Posts
My comment was related to baiting. We are missing the boat if we don't ban baiting now. There certainly is a logical inference that it can spread CWD. Waiting for proof from a scientific perspective is a multi-year job. Better to ban it in Michigan and let some other state risk their herd by waiting for proof.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,379 Posts
Ferg ... If the "this is what we have now" logic is the best way to look at any picture than why would we have ever had debates about QDM, One Buck Rule, or even allowing the legalization of crossbows. The obvious answer is that these forums welcome food for thought on upgrade.
<----<<<
I think I'm going to log off and log back on - I don't seem to be communicating very well today -

I'm NOT against the debate - it's just not the time for it - we have a CWD situation and a plan that has been put into place - that is what we have this morning - so, I think the discussion is or should be, as stated above, is the plan, the reaction, does it 'fit' the causation?

I think we'll find that most, in the end, will say no, not in this situation (high fence find vs free ranging find)

ferg....

But as stated - it's the ONLY plan they had, and had to execute it - now it's time to 'tweek' it - :)
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
17,772 Posts
I think it was a free ranging plan with a captive trigger - the problem is/was - there was never a 'plan' for this trigger, only the free ranging.

Given some time, as others have said, I believe the baiting/feeding will be back as it's not the proper response to this causation, it's just the only one that they have on hand.

ferg....
:confused: Sure! This would be much better than simply stating "we made a mistake", or say "Our plan was for wild animals, not captive animals".
Lets face it the plan for control of TB in cattle only minimally incorporates the control of TB in deer. In other words controlling TB in deer is only one small segment of controlling TB in a captive herd. If the same case can be made for CWD why not come out and say it.
[For the record Ferg I am agreeing with you and being critical of the proposed plan, or as it may be the lack of a plan.]
<----<<<
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,043 Posts
Ferg,
I've read the 2002 Contingency Plan a couple of dozen times....triggers are spelled out for both PO Herds and Free-Range animals.....???
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,070 Posts
Perfect example, does it have to be a bigger threat or just a threat at all...both were put in to attract deer, ban both!!
Crop fields are a threat, apple and oak trees are a threat, mock scrapes are a threat. Although they are minor threats, do we ban those too? Not trying to be difficult but there has to be a line drawn somewhere. I would consider food plots a minor threat as well.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,379 Posts
:confused: Sure! This would be much better than simply stating "we made a mistake", or say "Our plan was for wild animals, not captive animals".
[For the record Ferg I am agreeing with you and being critical of the proposed plan, or as it may be the lack of a plan.]
<----<<<
No worries - my 'issue' if I have one - is, they either have to back off the 'plan' (to some degree based on the trigger) or they will stick with it hard and fast as the only positive step at this point - the right or wrong we don't care it's out plan and we're sticking to it approach ;)

I think there is middle ground on both sides of this issue, especally because it came from a fence op and didn't walk across the border.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,043 Posts
No worries - my 'issue' if I have one - is, they either have to back off the 'plan' (to some degree based on the trigger) or they will stick with it hard and fast as the only positive step at this point - the right or wrong we don't care it's out plan and we're sticking to it approach ;)

I think there is middle ground on both sides of this issue, especally because it came from a fence op and didn't walk across the border.
I think there is middle ground too, but it is too early to know what that middle ground is.

This disease can live in the deer and be spread for up to 60 months.
This particular deer has come into contact with a lot of other deer that have been shipped to other areas.
The deer are being traced-out as we speak(type), and there is a great possibility that this one deer has come into contact with other deer who have been in contact with other deer who have escaped from the ranch....and so on and so on.....

The black-market brokering that goes on between these ranchers (not the majority, but a few bad apples), is what causes these types of problems, and when one of these particular ranch owners knows trouble is coming his way what do you think he might do to avoid it???

Turn the illegally acquired deer loose....let him go, get rid of him....into the wild.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
19,596 Posts
Ferg -

Ken is right the DNR contingency plan makes provisions regardless of whether the emergence of CWD occurs in either free ranging or privately owned (captive) cervids. The question will be whether there is political intervention which will alter the planed response now that the rubber has actually met the road.
 
1 - 20 of 120 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top