Supplemental deer feeding in U.P. unwise given disease risk
Contact: Rob Anderson, (800) 292-2680, ext. 2046
LANSING, Feb. 12, 2004 - Given concerns about animal disease spread, the Michigan Farm Bureau (MFB) is disappointed the state Natural Resources Commission (NRC) did not stick to its decision to ban supplemental feeding of deer and instead bowed to public pressure to resume the risky practice in parts of the Upper Peninsula.
"It's unfortunate that the NRC wasn't able to hold firm in the first winter after implementing the ban," said Rob Anderson, MFB legislative counsel. "We understand that people feel sympathy and are compelled to feed deer to help their survival through a harsh winter. But now's the time when the NRC needed to hold firm to its original decision, rather than reverse course less than one year later based on social concerns rather than disease risk."
Last Friday, the NRC approved an interim order allowing residents in certain parts of the Upper Peninsula to apply for permits that would allow supplemental feeding from Jan. 1 through May 15 as long as certain conditions were met. The eligible counties are: Ontonagon, Houghton, Keweenaw, Baraga, Alger, Luce and portions of Marquette and Chippewa counties north of the T43N-T44N boundary line.
Back in June 2002, the NRC, in response to concerns about the potential spread of chronic wasting disease (CWD), voted to ban supplemental deer feeding in U.P. counties that border Wisconsin and extend the supplemental feeding ban to all of the Upper Peninsula beginning May 2003. At that time, supplemental feeding was already banned in the Lower Peninsula as a firewall against the spread of bovine tuberculosis (TB).
MFB member-developed policy supports a statewide ban on feeding and baiting of free-ranging deer.
"We know that supplemental feeding is a prime way for animals to transmit disease," said Anderson. "No matter how much the public may desire to feed deer, it's a luxury we simply can't afford when there's even the slightest chance of spreading devastating diseases like TB and CWD."
The more responsible move, said Anderson, would have been for the NRC to remain firm, reinforce the reasons why the ban was put in place and allow time for review.
The newest order is valid for one year.
"We hope the NRC will give as much weight to scientific facts about disease spread as it did to human emotion when it reviews the order in a year," said Dave Bahrman, a Rumely cash crop and livestock producer who represents U.P. farmers on the MFB Board of Directors.
The NRC order takes some agricultural concerns into consideration. For instance, one condition of a permit being granted states that feed must be placed at least one mile from livestock.
But with these conditions comes proper enforcement, said Anderson. "Enforcing a statewide ban is easier than allowing some feeding that opens up the possibility of the system being abused," he said.
