Michigan Sportsman Forum banner

Could you accept this bait ban compromise?

  • Yes, I could accept this plan

    Votes: 30 48.4%
  • No, I could not accept this plan

    Votes: 32 51.6%
1 - 20 of 35 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
As a pragmatic man, there's something that tells me that the next few days of meetings in Lansing will possibly alter the current LP baiting ban currently in place. I have no inside knowledge of changes, just a gut feeling that state Rep's and farmers alike will exert great pressure to alter the current baiting ban.

If the ban is to be altered, and I suspect it will, what is the best course of action? I have a suggestion for a poll that may keep most happy for the 2008 season.

My suggestion for 2008 is to create a several county no baiting "hot zone" around Kent County, just like what is done with the TB Zone. That way, the rest of the LP is open to baiting for this year only and the states farmers can sell their ready for harvest bait crops across the state, in the open baiting counties.

The hot zone must be by county and not just some 20 or 50 mile circle around the CWD deer farm. Hunters can figure out county lines. The map of the 20 or 50 mile hot zone circle, if not done by county, would be a nightmare to figure out.

The no baiting hot zone should have Kent county at the center. Then have Allegan, Barry, Ionia, Montcalm, Newaygo, Muskegon and Ottawa counties around it in the baiting ban also. There'd be no baiting in these 8 counties.

This is the best way to go IMHO, if the CWD plan in place is to be altered over the next few days. Any potential CWD wild deer is most likely cut off, yet farmers can sell bait for this seasons crops that are ready for harvest.

After this 2008 season, all baiting would then be banned in the LP, for good.

Most importantly, this should give a good safe buffer zone around the CWD deer farm in Kent County.

This compromise gives hunters a grace period to adjust to no baiting in the LP until next year. It also gives farmers a chance to re-coup money for this years crops and to plant something else next year. It also gives all retail outlets a chance to assume the income they planned on for this Fall.

But then it will be known to all that baiting is forever banned in the LP come January 2009.

From there, in 2009, MDNR can make strong suggestions if they believe that turnip food plots also pose a risk and act accordingly.

But the food plot debate is not paramont in the coming days. The baiting ban is and how it will be dealt with.

So I ask, if there are to be changes in the coming days, is this compromise something you could live with? Don't forget, the ban could stay in place as is or the ban could be totally lifted with only a small 20 mile hot zone around that Kent County farm.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,980 Posts
I wonder if those counties in the baiting ban would receive pretty much unlimitied anterless tags? Any plan that addresses a cwd posibility will most likely include a scorched earth policy in regards to deer numbers. I know ottowa county has had pretty much unlimited anterless tags but i dont know about the other counties you mentioned. The slp will have a harder time drasticaly reducing deer numbers, but noth of gr the hunters have demonstrated a willingness to shooot the last deer if they can get a permit.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,581 Posts
That sounds some what reasonable to me. The one thing that bothers me is the fact that the one deer that tested positive had been moved around to several different locations. I got this info from a DNR Biologist. Any one else know anything about this?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,251 Posts
In your plan we would ban baiting for good in 2009, why??? IF after the 2008 season we had another CWD case then I could understand...but if we don't get another case of CWD in the wild...why would we close baiting for good??

Work on closing the deer ranches!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #5 ·
Plugger, in 2009, I would expect unlimited antlerless tags in the entire SLP. Maybe forever.
I'd also expect the same unlimited tags that Newaygo and Mecosta had for several years, a few years back. Plus probably a few other central NLP counties, starting in 2009. These will stay in place until those NLP counties are at or below goal.
Knocking herds down by another 20-30% is just something we should anticipate and concede. It's coming and the right thing to do.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,399 Posts
That sounds some what reasonable to me. The one thing that bothers me is the fact that the one deer that tested positive had been moved around to several different locations. I got this info from a DNR Biologist. Any one else know anything about this?
I heard the same thing, where did this deer contract the disease from?

Rather, deer movement between the state's 600 private cervid preserves is extensive, managers say. That's because state officials closed Michigan's borders to all cervid imports in 2002. So any Michigan resident wanting to start a herd or breed or buy an outside deer must do so within Michigan, MDA managers say. So criss-crossing between herds is a continuous process.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,514 Posts
Nope, leave the ban on this year. I would rather the state take measures to prevent the disease, and if that includes banning bait for a while, fine by me.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,399 Posts
Plugger, in 2009, I would expect unlimited antlerless tags in the entire SLP. Maybe forever.
I'd also expect the same unlimited tags that Newaygo and Mecosta had for several years, a few years back. Plus probably a few other central NLP counties, starting in 2009. These will stay in place until those NLP counties are at or below goal.
Knocking herds down by another 20-30% is just something we should anticipate and concede. It's coming and the right thing to do.
I hope not!! Our local herd just as yours, has finally made a come back from the slaughter that took place when the permits were liberalized. Too many people on m-s.com speaks of the slp being completely over run with deer and thats not the case.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
995 Posts
No. If the ban is needed, then implement it immediately. If not needed now as announced, then we don't need it next year. I support the ban; no need to run from it now. As I have said elsewhere, if a few store owners and farmers go under because of this, then they probably would have gone under anyway with the first drought, etc.

"I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air." - Margaret Thatcher


Swamper
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
Based on the figures reported in a 1999 DNR baiting study, 70% of archery hunters and 53% of firearms hunters in Michigan bait.

Food plots are a pimple on the **** right now. They can and will be addressed in 2009.

Tomorrow is a meeting on the bait ban in Lansing and then the NRC meeting is Thursday. Baiting will be the main issue addressed. Baiting is the gorilla in the room. Food plotters are a small mnority.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,131 Posts
I could live with it. I still believe a spinning corn feeder type of system has a place and would like some studies to be done on these....... No bait piles or salt licks and I am also a little worried about the deer lures. I would say synthetics only. But if they did go with what you described i would feel alot better then knowing alot of farmers are probably a little worried right now.......as I have stated before.....There are way to many houses sitting empty around here i would hate to see more....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 · (Edited)
"I seem to smell the stench of appeasement in the air." - Margaret Thatcher

Swamp, I talked to state Rep's today and MDNR big wigs. I think tomorrow's meeting will be something else. :lol:

Appeasement, no. Showdown, yes.

Don't forget, this ban right now is only for 6 months. All baiting could return after 6 months. Deal or no deal?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,514 Posts
I hope not!! Our local herd just as yours, has finally made a come back from the slaughter that took place when the permits were liberalized. Too many people on m-s.com speaks of the slp being completely over run with deer and thats not the case.
Some areas of SLP have WWWAAAAAYYYYY to many does, and others do not. I agree, not all areas are over run.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,980 Posts
Unfortunatly for us Bob the cwd thing may see goals adjusted much lower than even what we saw a few years ago. I fear after talking to a couple of biolgists from the north, they see our area as the fire break. Many consider the fact that a path of transmisson cannot be traced as a call to implement the more drastic measures. If the source is wild what lengths will the dnr go to contain the disease. The baiting issue becomes mute point if we depopulate the area,
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
2,524 Posts
I voted no, not because I am against baiting, because I see no reason to ban it if CWD isn't found in the wild population.

Now that said, I would accept a bait ban if the minimum antlered deer allowed to be taken was 8 or more points with an inside spread outside the deer's ears. Also, a hunter must take a doe before they kill a buck, but no more does after that point.

But as it stands, lets keep baitin' em in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
639 Posts
If 70% of the bow hunters used bait, what would be their succes rate without bait? This is the group that will hurt the most by the baiting ban. Why not just wait and see what happens. If no cwd is found in the wild herd the do like WI did. After all most people think MI should copy other states. If the ban stays forever then food plots should be closely looked at. Yes, the states with cwd haven`t banned them but then they still have the disease too. Would guess that after the wave of protest hits the nrc,dnr and Lansing that baiting will be back in some form and hopefully not for bow hunters only. So it is a no vote.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,867 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Plugger, if I was to guess, I'd say my area has it's populations back up to mid-1990's numbers. In 2002-2004, it was pretty grim. In a few short years the population has exploded again. There's deer everywhere.
Too many deer. And now we have this new drawing mess for private land antlerless tags that essentially results in dedicated doe killers to one bonus antlerless tag.
If we don't go to unlimited, my county needs to go to a quota back over 10,000 and raise the limit to 3 per person. I suggested that to the biologist the last 2 years and he was way ahead of me and agreed 100%. But the quota still remained at 6000. Probably a result of the winter deer meetings backlash a few years back.
With less hunters and possibly no baiting, unlimited antlerless tags is probably the best idea.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,596 Posts
Well we know Sheltron has already taken on the cause to overturn the ban. Also, many of the large farmers (as well as large distributors) have threaten to sue the state if the ban isn't lifted. Personally I'd be shocked if the current plan isn't modified prior to Oct 1st. I thnk it certain that the banned area will only be around the enclousure site (like you rferred to), but the rest of the LP will be open to baiting.

I voted no on the proposal. I agree with all of what you said except the part about banning bait after this year in the entire LP. If they test every (or almost every) deer killed in the concerned zone and many more from else where in the LP, and no other deer are found to have CWD, then I would use the same rules as "08". If something else does turn up, then I would support a more drastic change.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
12,980 Posts
Its too bad hunters could'nt take a look at their deer numbers, habitat, browse lines ect and be responsible without leagal quoatas.
 
1 - 20 of 35 Posts
Top