Archery Talk Forum banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
http://www.jsonline.com/news/state/sep03/170285.asp

Assembly panel OKs rules on deer baiting
Measure would allow limited feeding outside disease zone

By DENNIS CHAPTMAN
[email protected]
Last Updated: Sept. 16, 2003

Madison - Tighter restrictions on baiting and feeding of deer in Wisconsin won the backing of a key Assembly panel Tuesday after the author of the measure scolded the Department of Natural Resources for opposing the limits.

"I have no clue what and where you are coming from. You make no sense," Rep. Scott Gunderson (R-Waterford) told Tom Hauge, the DNR's wildlife management director, who opposed the measure.

Gunderson said temporary rules approved this month by the DNR board ban baiting and feeding in 22 - and soon 23 - counties but allow unrestricted feeding and permit hunters up to 10 gallons of bait per hunting site in the rest of the state.

His measure - approved on a 10-1 vote by the Assembly Natural Resources Committee - also would ban baiting and feeding in the counties near where chronic wasting disease has been found but restrict feeding to two gallons and allow hunters two gallons at baiting sites in the rest of the state.

Also Tuesday, the Joint Committee for Review of Administrative Rules approved a bill that would prevent baiting and feeding in chronic wasting disease control zones. That bill, however, would allow feeding only in northern Wisconsin and baiting everywhere but in the control zones.

Gunderson said his bill could come up on the Assembly floor Tuesday, and if the Senate acts quickly and the governor signs the measure, it could take effect by mid-October. That would be in time to affect both bowhunters and the gun season.

"Right now, we're dealing with a 10-gallon baiting limit and unlimited feeding," a testy Gunderson told Hauge. "I would think you guys would embrace this and come in here with open arms."

But Hauge said the agency favors a statewide ban on all baiting and feeding.

"I'd like to give you the all-clear on two gallons, but I can't," Hauge said, adding that the smaller piles may encourage more contact between deer than larger piles of food. "It's less food out there, but I can't tell you that CWD won't be spread with two gallons."

Elsewhere in the Capitol Tuesday, the Committee for Review of Administrative Rules voted 5-3 to recommend the following changes, sending them on to other committees of the Legislature:

Baiting of deer would be allowed during hunting seasons outside the emergency chronic wasting disease zones, subject to a two gallon per day limit on two sites for every 40-acre parcel.
Feeding deer would be allowed only north of State Highway 54 and would be limited to two gallons per day within a 50-yard radius of owner-occupied residences.
State law required the rules committee, which last month formally blocked the DNR's statewide ban on baiting and feeding, to offer a substitute plan on the issue. Had the committee not done so, the agency's original statewide ban could have gone into effect, a staff lawyer advised the committee.

Gunderson's legislation allows hunters to bait deer if they do not place more than two gallons of feed in any area of 40 acres or less.

Greg Kazmierski, spokesman for the Wisconsin Deer Hunters Coalition, backed the measure.

Hauge said DNR officials plan to add Sheboygan County by the end of this week to the list of 22 counties where baiting and feeding is now banned. That's because the ban extends to all counties within a 10-mile radius of sites where infected animals have been found. Hauge said officials erred in not including Sheboygan County because an infected animal was found in Manitowoc County last spring.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
I like the reasoning the DNR is using, "larger bait piles would mean less spread". What happens when the bait pile gets smaller, the deer quit eating the bait. Michigan has the 2 gallon rule and I think it sucks. If it would have been left at 5 gallons per day I would have been happy with that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
745 Posts
This is just the beginning if someone does not stop them!:mad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
At least the legislature is in favor of a limited feeding program. Not an all out ban on baiting as the DNR proposes. Wisconsin DNR lost a lot of money last year due to the baiting ban. I would think they would use their heads and come to a compromise. I heard the otherday that some hunters were asking for refunds on their licences in the other 22 counties.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
But Hauge said the agency favors a statewide ban on all baiting and feeding.
The "agency" being the WI DNR.

"I'd like to give you the all-clear on two gallons, but I can't," Hauge said, adding that the smaller piles may encourage more contact between deer than larger piles of food. "It's less food out there, but I can't tell you that CWD won't be spread with two gallons."
Now, smaller piles may encourage more deer contact than larger piles? This is laughable, folks. The WI DNR is off the freakin deep end and it is obvious to anyone who is paying attention.

WI - TAKE BACK YOUR DNR!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
Mustang said:
I heard the otherday that some hunters were asking for refunds on their licences in the other 22 counties.
http://www.jsonline.com/outdoors/sep03/168802.asp

Last-minute bait ban frustrates bowhunters
Many had put out feed; some threaten boycott


By MEG JONES
[email protected]
Last Updated: Sept. 10, 2003

Bowhunters who figured they could once again set out piles of feed to attract deer after a legislative committee axed a baiting and feeding ban are now in a quandary.

They put out piles of corn and other food on their land only to find out this week that baiting will not be allowed in 22 counties.

Some are so incensed they're calling for a boycott of the gun-deer season in November.

"Now we're shafted because (you) can't legally hunt over (your) bait pile for 10 days," said Tom Halverson, co-founder of Concerned Hunters of Wisconsin. "Well, that means (we) can't hunt opening day."

Todd Mascaretti, who hunts in Marquette County, said many of his neighbors have already set out bait piles for the opening of bow season, and they're wondering if they'll get $517 tickets for having an illegal bait pile.

"Just about everyone around here will be affected by this," said Mascaretti, a Marquette County representative on the Conservation Congress.

Mascaretti and Halverson are organizing the gun-season boycott and are encouraging hunters to send their back tags or back tag holders to legislators. (Deer hunters are required to wear their licenses attached to their backs.) On Wednesday, Mascaretti sent eight back tags to Rep. Glenn Grothman (R-West Bend).

On Monday, the Natural Resources Board approved an emergency order banning baiting and feeding of deer in 22 counties, mostly in southern Wisconsin, to curb the transmission of chronic wasting disease in the wild white-tailed deer herd. The temporary ban goes into effect today. Baiting and feeding are legal in the rest of the state.

Department of Natural Resources Chief Warden Randy Stark said Wednesday that because of the board's decision so close to the opening of bow season, "we're going to be using a lot of discretion" when finding bait piles.

Stark sent an e-mail to wardens explaining how to handle baiting in the 22 counties.

"We'll be looking for the intentional ones and educating the rest," Stark said.

Unlike last year, deer scent can be used to attract animals, though there are restrictions in the 22 counties. In counties under the baiting ban, hunters can use up to two ounces of scent, but only in a way that deer cannot consume the scent, said Kurt Thiede, of the DNR.

But Mascaretti said the way the rule is written, few will be able to use scent, because most put it on the ground or trees where deer can lick it.

Also Wednesday, the DNR said resident archery license sales are 4% higher than last year at this time, when the number of licenses dropped sharply because of chronic wasting disease concerns and a ban on baiting. Resident gun-deer licenses are 6% ahead of sales a year ago.

From the Sept. 11, 2003 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

*************************

Mustang - They're after your scents, too. Next, they're coming after your food plots.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
Now, smaller piles may encourage more deer contact than larger piles? This is laughable, folks.
Smaller piles = less food in a smaller area for the same number of deer. I would expect more "nose to nose" contact in this situation.

Doesn't really matter anyway... no one sticks to any size requirements on bait piles. I've seen'em as big as pickup trucks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
63 Posts
Wisconsin DNR lost a lot of money last year due to the baiting ban
Actually, it had a heck of a lot more to do with the unknowns around CWD than not bein able to bait! If you really want to get technical, it was a lot of wives, who said they'd refues to eat venison or feed it to their families, so guys were either hunting for that once-in-a-lifetime buck only, or not hunting at all.

In essence, the DNRs stance was that 2 gallons was no different than 10 gallons... so why "compromise" to 2 gallons? Further, as stated in the article, 2 gallons potentially could be eve worse than 10! And not one person has answered how in the heck the DNR wardens can be expected to enforce a "2 sites of 2 gallons per 40 acres." Where does one 40 end and another start? That's basically an unenforcable rule, so why bother?

But I digress... I do not have the time or patience to get into another war of words with DeerTexas and Javelina.

And for the record, I've hunted the first four nights of WI bow season. I hunt where baiting is allowed... but I have hunted WITHOUT the aid of a baitpile. I have actually hunted, where I spend time learnign the lay of the land and how deer relate to it, not just my 2 hours in a treestand over a pile of corn. I have hunted out of makeshift ground blinds, and I have seen a total of 14 bucks and over 30 does and fawns... all without the use of bait. I have had my pick of deer, but so far have not taken one, although I had an 18" 10-pointer at 30 yards, off the ground, but blew the shot.

My point is not to argue the ethics of using bait up in WI (ok, maybe a little), but more so the fact that you do not need bait to kill a deer, especially in WI. I say WI because I understand that in places liek TX, it would be virtually impossible to hunt deer without feed. Further, as stated numerous times on this board, most texas deer reside on tightly controlled and professionally managed properties, unlike in WI. In TX and other states, you don't have CWD in your herd... we do. Also, it has been proven we DON"T have to have bait to kill deer... last year was the perfect example of that. It is also strongly believed, through numerous studies (here we go again... I could list all sorts of studies pointing to the likely links between feeding/baiting and disease transmission, but I would just be blasted by DeerTexas that he still doesn't see any proof...) With a little bit of work (scouting), any hunter should be able to get within killing distance of a deer without the use of bait, pretty much any place in WI. Why take the chance of spreading CWD, just so some people don't have to do as much work or really learn to hunt to kill their deer, when its obvious hunters in this state do just fine without bait... at least until more is known about the disease? i wonder whats gonna happen if CWD shows up in a deer north of Hwy 54 this year...

Also, for those who want to boycott their own hunting opportunities simply because they cannot bait, well, that is just too bad for them. Because there is pretty much nothing that could keep me, or any other hunter who is really serious about hunting, out of the woods come September. There is nothing wrong with being unhappy about the decision, but to think your going to somehow hurt the DNR by not buying a license is rediculous. If anything, all you'll do is force the DNR to lok for funding elsewhere, and in the process force them to listen to the anti-agenda and the bird-watchers and nature lovers wishes over the sportsmens. Because contrary to popular belief, the DNR is not against sportsman or the hunting community. Anyone who really thinks this is so just illustrates their own ignorance to the history of the DNR and the role it plays in wildlife conservation.

I guess I'll wait now for DeerTexas to tear apart my post :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,390 Posts
Ok, so what do bigger piles equal again?
Take a bait pile that is 10 feet across, and put 5 deer on it.

Now take a pile that is 2 feet across, and put the same 5 deer on it. If one of them has something to spread, chances would be greater if they are concentrated in smaller area.

Then again... I could be way off. I'm no expert on baiting. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,341 Posts
Don't know about WI but in MI the 2 gal. of bait must be spread out over a 10X10 foot area. We started planting food plots when MI started baiting and have be glad that we did (do much better than the neighbor who uses bait).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
220 Posts
When are we as Hunters ,going to stand up,and put a stop to this ?Thing's are getting way out of hand,and we need to band togeather to reak havok,on their attempts,to ruin our beloved PASSION.They infiltrate our rank's,portraying themselves off to be hunter's,only to ridicule ,and harrass us on our own site's.Enough is enough,and it's time to feed the Howling Dog's.Pass the AMMO> LOL.Mabey as Hunters,we should join their site's,and contaminate their ambitions?Sorry for venting,but we are losing more and more everyday,and before you know it,we will be the minority.Like Toby Keith say's,Time to put a Boot in their (Well you Know).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
543 Posts
In one way I will agree with UpNorth_hunter on not having to bait up here to get a deer. I hunt in Iron county in Michigan where I was raised. I have shot a few deer just going to the store to get coffee taking a break from the stand. But to ban baiting by the DNR is just a show of their already ridculous power they have. Michigan wanted to ban baiting before CWD even appeared in WI. Now is all they are doing is waiting for it to cross the border so they can. My cure for the not baiting is to just find a good apple tree to post by and get my buck. The DNR is making the advocate groups against hunting very happy. But, have I heard yet that you have time restrictions on the recreational baiting of deer with the same feeding restrictions. NO!!!!!

DeerTexas,
I agree with you whole heartedly. The scents and food plots will be next.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
3,296 Posts
Discussion Starter #16
They've already attacked your freedom to use scents with senseless restrictions. Restrictions so broad, scents might as well be banned already. 2 oz. or less, not to be placed where it can be consumed, and remove all scents by the end of the day.

Food plots are next.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
...an elephant in the room, and nobody's talkin' about it....

It’s a given that every participant in this forum is a committed deer hunter. Good for us. We have found a passion.

After reading the posts from those who are concerned about restrictions on baiting I am sympathetic. Their concern is understandable. They believe restrictions will diminish the enjoyment of the hobby they clearly love. And regardless of your personal motivation to be “pro-bait” or “anti-bait”, it is the enjoyment of deer that is the bigger motivator for us all.

Though I can sympathize with their concern I believe there is a bigger picture, a greater interest that we deer hunters must bear in mind. That Greater Interest is public health.
And whether it is mentioned or not, haunting much of the dialogue on deer density, CWD, and baiting, is the ghost of Britain’s Mad Cow.

Wisconsin’s DNR staffers, Op/Ed pages, deer ‘professionals’ and hunting periodicals, all wrung their hands over the decline in hunting in Wisconsin in 2002. All cited, correctly, that there was no evidence of CWD “jumping species” to humans. But then, nobody was forgetting that British media, British scientists, and the British government all said, “there was no evidence………”

The 1990’s outbreak of Mad Cow and it’s unforeseen jump of the “species barrier” was in the thoughts of many of the hunters who DID NOT buy licenses in Wisconsin last year. And certainly it was in the thoughts of the wives & mothers who would serve venison to their families. The unknowable then was distilled to “Is it safe?”. And with it being unknowable they did what prudent fathers and mothers do….they made it safe. They didn’t kill it. They didn’t eat it.

Much of last year’s drama goes to the “worry” whether CWD is a threat to humans. Imagine then, if certainty would replace worry. That it becomes knowable. That, in fact, CWD, does jump species; and that the disease in humans looks a lot like Mad Cow in humans. Imagine that horror story.

Next, imagine in the above hypothetical, that it is widely publicized that the deer hunting community had ample notice that concentrating deer over concentrated food sources …baiting …had for some time been suspected as playing a role in transmitting this disease. And yet, that hunting community took insufficient steps, in fact, resisted, curtailing the practice because we did not want to disrupt our ‘way of doing things’. We didn’t believe the plethora of scientific reports that voiced suspicion over the practice. Imagine the backlash to hunting then. PETA activists are cuddly munchkins compared to an outraged public put at risk to a gruesome disease by what they perceive as selfish ‘hobbyist’.

So my point in all of the above is this: Hunters are in a position to be partners & supporters of the scientific community and regulatory bodies in addressing the CWD threat. Yet, too many of us deny legitimate scientific reports, disparage government agencies charged with containment, and lobby and opine vigorously their “right” to hunt the way they want to hunt. That is reckless. The disease’s impact on just deer is bad enough but if, God forbid, it jumps to humans then the hunting community could bear significant blame.

It doesn’t need to be that way. We can signal to society at large that we are responsible; that we are guardians of the health of the wild deer herd; that we will do our share to protect the public health. We can live with a moratorium on baiting for three years.

As I’ve posted before, there is so much at risk here. If we give up baiting as a test of it’s impact, or as signal of our commitment, then we give up relatively little. However, if baiting proves to be a contributor …as it is suspected to be…. of transmitting this disease and we are perceived as obstructionists………. then we risk an unthinkable loss
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
268 Posts
Fairfax

Very well written. I agree on some points and disagree on others. I do agree that we share a similar passion. I WILL preserve that at all cost. Here is my concern.

I hear from many source (DNR, hunting magazines, posts here) that CWD can be spread from nose to nose contact and could potentially jump species. MAYBE ( i say that with extreme caution ) just maybe that is correct, but I have yet to see any documentation. Someone posted a link to research being done out west that hinted at nose to nose contact ( I believe it was an article in nature which has published some unfounded scientific data as of late). This is in complete contradiction to research I have seen. The links I posted showed numbers and transmission models that indicated nose to nose contact was highly unlikely. I would love to see actually data from experiments that showed this form of transmission but I still have not seen such info. I may be a little anal but I tend not to accept the word of the DNR or govt. scientist ( remember..."agent orange won't hurt you").

Second, We are all aware of prion disease in humans. Acutally the disease occurs infrequently ( but statistically consistent) in the population. I would be interested in comparing the occurance of Mad cow disease cross over with the average occurance of prion disease in the human population. This could merely be a statistically predictable incident that is unrelated to mad cow. If my memory serves me right there were only 3 infections and one was not verified as prion disease. If I am wrong then please show me some numbers.

Again, I believe in sound scientific data but I want to see the data myself.

Thanks and again good post fairfax.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
19,164 Posts
Re: Fairfax

Buckskin73 said:
Very well written. I agree on some points and disagree on others. I do agree that we share a similar passion. I WILL preserve that at all cost. Here is my concern.

I hear from many source (DNR, hunting magazines, posts here) that CWD can be spread from nose to nose contact and could potentially jump species. MAYBE ( i say that with extreme caution ) just maybe that is correct, but I have yet to see any documentation. Someone posted a link to research being done out west that hinted at nose to nose contact ( I believe it was an article in nature which has published some unfounded scientific data as of late). This is in complete contradiction to research I have seen. The links I posted showed numbers and transmission models that indicated nose to nose contact was highly unlikely. I would love to see actually data from experiments that showed this form of transmission but I still have not seen such info. I may be a little anal but I tend not to accept the word of the DNR or govt. scientist ( remember..."agent orange won't hurt you").

Second, We are all aware of prion disease in humans. Acutally the disease occurs infrequently ( but statistically consistent) in the population. I would be interested in comparing the occurance of Mad cow disease cross over with the average occurance of prion disease in the human population. This could merely be a statistically predictable incident that is unrelated to mad cow. If my memory serves me right there were only 3 infections and one was not verified as prion disease. If I am wrong then please show me some numbers.

Again, I believe in sound scientific data but I want to see the data myself.

Thanks and again good post fairfax.

Yeah,

What he said.....
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
139 Posts
...Bucksin 73 ...

I enjoyed your post, too.

Some of your points ...such as the number of cases of Mad Cow, or the naturally occurring incidence of prion diseases in humans ....I wouldn't comment on as I plainly don't know.

But, I'll try to illuminate the reference to the scientific report described in the Nature article as I originally posted the link to the article and I referenced it in a post.

First, I have not read the entire report. What I know about it comes from two sources: an informative post referencing the Nature article and the report on the internet site www.Bowsite.com ...Michigan Conference forum where a thread by Tom Morang titled "Nature Mag.." elicited responses by an apparently informed poster calling himself, "Jack B."; and then, the article itself, by Helen Pilcher.

If there is a reference about 'nose to nose contact' in the report I'm ignorant of it.

But, I will post here some quotes. First, several paragraphs from Pilcher's article:

"In an experimental herd in Colorado, some 90% of animals succumbed to the disease within four years, regardless of whether their parents were infected or not. Infection is thought to spread in urine, saliva, or faeces....."

and,

"The disease can pass between unrelated animals, and from mother to unborn fawn, but it has been unclear which route is most common. To find out, Miller's team studied a herd of captive Colorado mule deer.....born to infected healthy mothers.

All but one of the animals contracted CWD. This suggests that deer are just as likely to catch the disease from one another as they are from their mothers."


Then NATURE published this report description:

Prion disease: Horizontal prion transmission in mule deer

MICHAEL W. MILLER* AND ELIZABETH S. WILLIAMS†

* Colorado Division of Wildlife, Wildlife Research Center, Fort Collins, Colorado 80526, USA
† Department of Veterinary Sciences, University of Wyoming, Laramie, Wyoming 82070, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

Epidemics of contagious prion diseases can be perpetuated by horizontal (animal to animal) and maternal (dam to offspring, before or after birth) transmission, but the relative importance of each mechanism is unclear. Here we compare the incidence of chronic wasting disease (CWD) in captive mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus) that is attributable to horizontal or maternal transmission. We find that horizontal transmission is remarkably efficient, producing a high incidence of disease (89%) in a cohort of deer in which maternal transmission was improbable. Our results indicate that horizontal transmission is likely to be important in sustaining CWD epidemics.


Clearly, this is yet another scientific effort in examing variables that may, or may not, encourage this disease. And, like most of what I've read on the subject the initial indicators point to close interaction between the animals as creating, at the least, an enviroment for the spread of the disease. This report seems to say that whatever the mechanism to it's spread the efficiency of it's spread ...at least in a confined herd .... is very high.

Taken as a whole, the reports, in my judgement point towards close animal contact as an important component. And, again in my view, the unnatural practice of concentrating deer on a conentrated food source (such a bait pile) seems like a risky activity for hunters to continue.

The main thrust of my last post is that we hunters must not be seen as engaging in an activity that may appear some day to have been contributory to this disease. If the disease grows dramatically and decimates just the herd....our refusal to pro-actively adopt recommended steps will be pointed to by non-hunters as a cause for decline of a much admired animal.

But, frightfully, if the disease goes on to threaten public health then we hunters ....who didn't do enought to counter the disease when we had the chance .....will lose much much more.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top