I've bow hunted Kansas for almost 30 years with my Cuz who lives there. From the start, we decided that baiting wasn't challenging, satisfying, nor particularly ethical. So we've never done it, nor will we.
And, yes, I've heard the arguments claiming hunting food plots, or natural food sources, is no different. I simply don't buy those arguments. I think it's akin to trying to catch my horses while they feed in my pasture (almost impossible to do), versus catching them when they come to the barn twice a day for their oats. To me, the bucks Pat and others have shot on this KS property are nothing more than glorified livestock.
I know it's a personal decision, and it's a divisive subject. Should Kansas continue to allow baiting for deer? Personally, I'd like to see it go away.
Your principles are a bit tougher than mine. While I prefer spot and stalk, I will sit in a tree stand or a ground blind when conditions call for it. I just refuse to stick a pile of corn out in front.
I think conditioning animals to come to a *specific* spot, within bow range of a shooter, doesn't require any hunting skills.
Almost every morning and evening I have between 20-40 wild turkeys come to my barn to feed on the scraps my horses leave behind. When they are near the barn, they're like domesticated chickens. I can walk right thru the middle of them without a single bird spooking. Away from the barn, they are as wily and spooky as any other wild turkeys. Killing one near my barn would be pathetically easy. I view Pat's Kansas bowhunts the same way.
Opining on what others should/should not do in terms of methods and tactics, based on what one personally has available is usually never a good thing.
As to KS in particular, I have no idea. Never hunted there.
About 1/2 the animals I have killed over the years were lured to their death because they were thirsty, hungry, horny, looking for a fight, lonely, or curious. The other 1/2 were ambushed unexpectedly as they went about their day.
"If it's not harming the resource or fellow hunters opportunities, it doesn't bother me."
I guess this where it becomes a sticky wicket. In Kansas, we hunt near properties where the hunters routinely bait. I know that adversely affects the number and quality of the deer we see. But then, we could also take the lazy approach, if we cared to.
However, there are circumstances when it's not just a personnel choice. For example, I know of properties on the Colorado/Kansas border where it becomes a legal distinction. Deer are lured to the Kansas side by baiting. Colorado hunters don't have that choice, since it's illegal here. So, it could be argued baiting does in fact harm fellow hunters opportunities in those cases.
When you really think about it Glunt, if you add in seeking safety, all those things you mentioned ARE their entire day. They only difference whether or not you had any part in them.
You have stated you don’t like it matt, and that you don’t do it. That’s your choice and I commend you for exercising your free agency to do so.
Now please allow me my free agency to bait and stop advocating to take it away from me simply because you think it’s unethical.
We need less government regulation. Regulation by gov is never the answer. Is hunting over bait easier? Yes. Is it more productive? Not necessarily. It can be easier/more productive but at certain times when deer are rutting they almost avoid corn. I’ve hunted individual bucks for 40-50 days without a sighting while hunting over corn, it’s not like shaking a bucket for your horses. Try it and form your own opinions instead of imposing yours on others.
Even with bait, the old and wary animals grow old because they are wary. That does not change.
I understand what you're saying Matt but that certainly goes both ways. I have a cabin and a small piece of property in northern Michigan. It is surrounded by mostly cedar and hemlock swamps, with varying patches of high ground (pictured). It's not the best deer hunting around but it's mine and it's where I choose to hunt.
Long story short, I have 2 mature white oaks on my property and a about a half dozen apple trees. The apple trees produce rather regularly but they are early apples (transparents) and they are gone by the time bow season rolls around, unless I pick them up with the intention of using them later. The oaks are hit and miss. Other than normal browse, that's about it in terms of natural food. About 5 years ago, Gerber Corp. leased up a bunch of land about a mile from me and they grow carrots and squash for baby food, and plant winter wheat after harvest. In the years that my trees aren't producing, I won't see a deer within a mile of my property. In the years they produce, it's not as good as it used to be, but I still see a fair amount of deer.
So, unless I want to clear what high ground I have and get into the farming business, in the years that I don't have natural food (acorns and apples), I have to lure the deer in somehow in order to hunt them, so in the years I don't have acorns I hang a feeder in order to hunt the same stands. Same with the apple trees only I might put the apples back that I picked up earlier, or buy more when they are gone.
It's interesting how the people who are used to hunting agricultural land complain when the deer are lured away, but have no problem with the fact that planted crops do the same thing to non ag parcels.
Good luck trying to pattern deer in this habitat without a specific food source.
To me, there's a difference between food plots, ag parcels, natural food sources, and a pile of bait within shooting distance of your stand. Again, I cite the difference between killing a turkey at my barn versus killing one anywhere else on my property.
Nearly every buck Pat has shot in KS was killed over a pile of corn. How many of those monster bucks would he have killed without baiting them? Dare I say, not many.
For me, the appeal of archery hunting is the challenge of out-smarting game and getting close enough for an ethical shot in their environment on their terms. Conditioning game to respond like Pavlov's dog to a dinner bell, then killing them when they do, goes against the grain of what archery hunting is about, IMO.
I respect other hunters rights to their opinions, too. My point for starting this thread was to poll those other opinions, not to impose mine.
85% let off compounds,
Blinds with shoot through mesh
Broadheads that expand like an AX
Activated charcoal suits
Deer Pee taken from a specific deer that has a more trackable serial number than a SSN.
Optical digitized camo patterns that fool a cervids eyes
. . . and someone is worried about legal baiting?
The obvious difference in all of those hunting aids/crutches that you listed is they don't condition animals to a specific behavior like baiting does. The turkeys at my barn couldn't care less if I'm in optically digitized camo or butt naked. They've been conditioned to act abnormally because they know it will result in an easy meal.
I understand your argument. The difference for me is whether it's normal behavior, or conditioned behavior. An elk coming to a wallow is normal behavior. An antelope drinking from a cattle tank or man-made water hole is also very normal behavior in most antelope country. A monster whitetail buck feeding on a pile of cut corn kernels in broad daylight isn't normal behavior, IMO.
Like Democrats picking up their checks......lol
If this was on the Wisconsin site it would be 3,2,1 thread locked!
Virtually all whitetails are creatures of habit. Regardless of what the food source is, unless disturbed, deer are going to usually take the same trails to access the food source and the same trails to return to bedding areas. They use the same escape routes when pressured and the bucks check out the same areas frequented by does during the rut.
I've hunted heavily managed habitat in Illinois and I can assure you that the deer were much more predictable traveling small woodlots between bean fields than anything I have "created" here in MI. It was never a matter of seeing deer within shooting range, or even nice bucks within shooting range, it was only a matter of seeing one that met the minimum size requirement of the specific hunter or the area we were hunting.
The same trails are used so frequently, by so many deer, over so many years, that they are literally depressions in the ground. One morning, I had a hot doe urinate under my stand. For the next couple hours I literally had a parade of different bucks come down the trail and check it out. From spikes and forks to basket eights and a ten that would score about 120"...all within about 10 yards of my stand. That doesn't even count the real monsters I glassed out in the field that never came my way. I saw more bucks and better quality bucks in that two hour period than I've seen in 20 years at my own camp. Sounds like fun, right? In all honesty, it's why I no longer hunt those places any more. It literally ruined hunting at my own camp for a while.
People find their own challenges where they will. I would much rather shoot a 2.5 year old 8 point with my recurve or longbow, coming in to check out does at my feeder, at my camp than to shoot a 150" monster with a tricked out compound or crossbow on a managed piece of property.
That's why I am all for game departments setting the rules and regulations based on what their management goals are, and letting each hunter decided what they want out of the experience, within the parameters of those regulations.
You really need to get a life.
I love the argument that people are lazy that bait.
You’re welcome anytime To come out and bait with me. I’ll even pay your way.
What you call lazy, I call fun. I love packing bait in 2 miles and 1500 vertical foot gain.I love seeing the animals that benefit. Especially after a harsh winter and they can use a freebie.
I also love hearing all about your conservative beliefs, backed up by what you think should be illegal for everyone else. It’s alwYs you telling another man what to do, how to do it.
Your schtick has gotten about as old and joshuaF’s song.
Give it up, you have to be the most miserable SOB to even know or be around. Let alone be married to.
"...never needed "bait" for deer..."
A lot of things aren't "needed" to bow hunt deer.
Among them are compounds, crossbows, sights, drop-away rests, lighted nocks, carbon arrows, mechanical broad heads, release aids, tree stands, lighted nocks, scents, calls, camo, Scent Loc, guides, antler restrictions, QDM, food plots, mineral supplements, trail cams, etc., etc., etc....all designed to make some aspect of the hunt easier.
I fail to see your point.
I would be curious to know what county these properties are located in.
Keep that in your neck of the woods
You fit right in in the state you reside.
And like I said, you have a standing invitation to come bait the ungulates. In fact, I have a winter one coming up here real quick.
Timothy R. Van Deelen Ph.D. Wisconsin DNR Research
Summary Reliable science provides support for a ban of baiting and feeding of white-tailed deer to reduce disease risks for Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD). Peer-reviewed research papers published in reputable scientific journals indicate the following:
· CWD is transmitted laterally (live diseased deer infect other deer) · Deer can get CWD by ingesting something contaminated with the disease prion · CWD prions may be shed in feces and saliva · Disease course and symptoms indicate high potential for transmission where deer are concentrated · Evidence from captive situations indicates that deer can get CWD from highly contaminated environments. · Baiting and Feeding causes unnatural concentration of deer · Reduction of contact through a ban on baiting and feeding is likely very important to eradicating or containing a CWD outbreak. · Baiting and feeding continues to put Wisconsin’s deer herd at risk to other serious diseases
In addition, experts in CWD, wildlife disease and deer nutrition support bans on baiting and feeding as part of a comprehensive strategy to prevent and/or manage CWD.
Under a baiting and feeding ban, disease outbreaks are more likely to be smaller in scale and more apt to be contained or eliminated. With the long CWD incubation period and other factors that make discovery of a new outbreak difficult, an outbreak that is already widespread when detected because of baiting and feeding may not be able to be contained or eliminated.
This document provides details and explicit links to the supporting science.
Chronic Wasting Disease and the Science behind the Ban on Baiting and Feeding Deer.
Some critics claim that there is no scientific support for the judgment that resulted in the ban. This is simply untrue. In this document, I review some of the scientific evidence in support of the baiting and feeding ban.
The science in support of the ban on baiting and feeding is strong and comes from a number of diverse scientific sub-disciplines (veterinary medicine, wildlife ecology, biochemistry, physiology, etc.). Consequently, there is no single comprehensive study or paper that, by itself, demonstrates the CWD-related effects of baiting and feeding of wild deer (good or bad). Evaluating the science relative to baiting and feeding requires integration of scientific evidence from several different sub-disciplines.
The quality of scientific evidence is an issue for some critics who claim that other science or other experts fail to support the ban. It is also an issue in trying to reach an objective scientific judgment. In keeping with established scientific practice, I consider articles published in reputable, peer-reviewed, scientific literature to be of the highest quality. Peer-review insures that articles have been rigorously evaluated and endorsed by qualified specialists. A secondary level of scientific rigor is the unpublished opinion or unpublished research of recognized experts working on the topic of interest. An example of this would be the opinion or unpublished research on CWD transmission from investigators who have established their expertise through peer-reviewed publication on other CWD-related topics. A very distant third level of quality is the unpublished opinion of recognized experts working on distantly related topics. Again, scientific expertise is demonstrated by frequent publication in reputable peer-reviewed scientific journals.
The following is a partial list of scientific evidence that suggests that baiting and feeding of wild deer elevates the risk of CWD transmission. This list focuses almost entirely on disease risks posed by CWD although other diseases (e.g. Bovine Tuberculosis) may pose even greater risks and there are many other reasons (e.g. ecological, social, nutritional) why baiting and feeding deer is inappropriate management. This list is intended to be explicit in its links to peer-reviewed science. Complete literature citations are included at the end of the document for readers who want to read the original scientific articles.
· CWD is transmitted laterally (live diseased deer infect other deer) Researchers who have studied CWD epidemics in both captive and free-ranging deer populations have determined that CWD is both contagious and self-sustaining (meaning that new infections occur fast enough for CWD to persist or increase over time despite the more rapid deaths of the diseased individuals; Miller et al 1998, 2000). Supporting evidence comes from observational data (Williams and Young 1992; Miller et al. 1998, 2000) experimental data, and epidemiological models fit to observed prevalences in free-living deer (Miller et al. 2000, Gross and Miller 2001, M. W. Miller unpublished in Williams et al. 2002). These studies suggest that observed prevalences and rates of spread of CWD in real populations could not occur without lateral transmission. For example, maternal transmission (doe to fawn) if it occurs, is rare and cannot explain most cases where epidemiologic data are available( Miller et al. 1998, 2000). Similarly, indirect lateral transmisson (e.g. from a contaminated environment) may require unusually high levels of contamination (see below; Williams et al. 2002). Nonetheless, emerging research from Colorado suggests that indirect lateral transmission from environmental contamination appears to play a role in sustained and recurrent epidemics (Miller 2002).
· Deer can get CWD by ingesting something contaminated with the disease prion Six mule deer fawns were fed a daily dose of 2g (0.07 ounces) of brain tissue from CWD-positive mule deer in a tightly controlled experiment for 5 days. Another three were fed the same doses using brain tissue from CWD-negative mule deer. All deer were held separately in indoor pens that had never before held deer. The fawns were then killed and necropsied at specific intervals 10 to 80 days post-inoculation. At 42 days and later post inoculation, all fawns dosed with CWD-positive tissue tested positive for CWD prions in lymph tissues associated with their digestive tracts (Sigurdson et al. 1999). Other transmissible spongiform encephalopathies (TSEs; Kuru, transmissible mink encephalopathy, bovine spongiform encephalopathy[BSE]) appear to be transmitted through ingestion of prion-infected tissue as well (Weissmann et al. 2002). Due to the human health crisis associated with eating BSE-infected beef in Europe, many other researchers working with TSEs, including CWD (Sigurdson et al 1999, 2001), have traced the movements of infectious prions of orally-infected animals through the lymph tissue embedded in the intestinal lining, into nervous tissues associated with the digestive tract (e.g. Maignien et al 1999, Beekes and McBride 2000, Heggebo et al. 2000, Huang et al. 2002) and eventually to the brain via the nervous system (Sigurdson et al. 2001, Weissmann et al. 2002). Experimental studies using hamsters have shown that prions can infect through minor wounds in the skin (Taylor et al. 1996) and that infection through minor wounds on the tongue was more efficient than infection from ingestion (Bartz et al. 2003). These studies not only demonstrate that an oral route of infection is possible, but are beginning to provide specific details about the pathways involved in the movement of infectious prions into the central nervous system and other organs (Weissmann et al. 2002).
· CWD prions may be shed in feces and saliva Following oral exposure, prions associated with many TSEs (Maignien et al 1999, Huang et al. 2002) including CWD (Sigurdson et al. 1999; Miller and Williams 2002 and Spraker et al. 2002 cited in Williams et al. 2002) both accumulate and replicate in the lymph tissues associated with the gastrointestinal tract – particularly in lymph tissues in contact with the mucosa lining the inside of the intestines (e.g. Peyer’s patches, Weismann et al. 2002). In infected deer, CWD prions also accumulate in the pancreas and various other glands of the endocrine system (Sigurdson et al 2001). Experiments with hamsters demonstrated that infectious prions can travel from the brain to the tongue along tongue-associated cranial nerves (Bartz et al. 2003). During digestion, the liver, pancreas, intestinal mucosa, and other glands secrete chemicals needed for digestion (Robbins 1983) and cells lining the inner surface of the intestine continuously die and slough off providing potential physical mechanisms for prion shedding into the intestines (others are likely). This is evidence that infectious prions are likely shed in the feces and saliva (Sigurdson et al. 1999). · Disease course and symptoms indicate high potential for transmission where deer are concentrated Appearance of CWD symptoms in an infected deer lags initial exposure by a variable time period on the order of roughly12-24 months or more ([E. S. Williams and M. W. Miller unpublished; E. S. Williams, M. W. Miller, and T. J. Kreeger unpublished] cited in Williams et al. 2002). Once clinical symptoms are observed, deer enter a symptomatic phase that may last on average 1-4 months before they invariably die (Williams et al. 2002). Symptoms are initially subtle but eventually include behaviors likely to contaminate a site with bodily fluids (e.g. excess urination, excess salivation including drooling and slobbering, and uncontrollable regurgitation, Williams et al. 2002). Deposition of feces increases with concentration of deer activity. This is both obvious and intuitive and pellet group counts have been used as an index of deer density since the 1940’s (Bennet et al. 1940). During winter, northern deer defecate about 22 times a day (Rogers 1987). At least one study (Shaked et al. 2001) has reported detection of an altered form of the infectious prion in the urine of hamsters, cattle, and humans with TSEs. This altered form, while not as virulent, produced sub-clinical prion infections following experimental inoculation. Shedding of infectious prions is likely progressive during the course of disease from infection to death (Williams et al. 2002). Replication and presence of infectious prions in gut-associated lymph tissue early in the incubation (Sigurdson et al. 1999, Weismann et al. 2002) and epidemiological modeling (M. W. Miller unpublished cited in Williams et al. 2002) suggest that shedding precedes the onset of symptoms in both elk and mule deer. In this regard, Garner (2001) documented a particularly alarming behavior among deer using frozen feed piles. Deer used the heat from their mouths and nostrils to thaw and dislodge food such that frozen feed piles were dented with burrows made from deer noses. He reported that “Throughout the winter multiple numbers of deer were observed working in and around the same feed piles. I suspect that each deer that feeds this way at a frozen feed pile leaves much of its own saliva and nasal droppings in the field pile at which its working”(Garner 2001, p. 46).
· Evidence from captive situations indicates that deer can get CWD from highly contaminated environments. In addition to direct lateral transmission, researchers suspect that deer can be infected indirectly from contaminated environments. Contaminated pastures “appear to have served as sources in some CWD epidemics although these observations are anecdotal and not yet corroborated by controlled studies” (Miller et al 1998, [M. W. Miller unpublished and E. S. Williams, W. E. Cook, and T. J. Kreeger unpublished] cited in Williams et al 2002). The potential for transmission from the environment is a function of the degree of contamination and the resistance of disease prions to chemical breakdown (Williams et al 2001, 2002). Consequently, the highest prevalences recorded for CWD outbreaks have been in captive situations (Williams and Young 1980, Williams et al. 2002) where because of abnormal concentration, indirect and direct transmission likely occur together (Williams et al. 2002). At high concentration, the persistence of the CWD prion in contaminated environments, may be a serious obstacle to disease eradication (Williams et al. 2002).
· Baiting and Feeding causes unnatural concentration of deer People use baiting and feeding to concentrate deer for enhanced hunter opportunity or viewing. In northern deer, seasonal concentration in deeryards is a well-known phenomenon (Blouch 1984). However, the potential for close animal-to-animal contact over a feed pile is fundamentally different than the contact yarded deer experience while foraging on natural food. In deeryards, deer eat a variety of woody browse plants and arboreal lichens (Blouch 1984) scattered across a large area. In terms of biomass and nutrition, the best source of browse and lichens may be litter-fall rather than live plant material growing in the understory (Ditchkoff and Servello 1998). Food sources in deer yards (litter and understory plants) are widely distributed over a large area and they are not replaced. Moreover, browse is typically held aloft on the plant stem such that fecal contamination is less likely. Foraging by wintering deer is an optimization process. Energy gains associated with eating need to be balanced against energy costs associated with travel and exposure (Moen 1976). Yarded deer with little or no access to supplemental food maintain relatively large overlapping home ranges (e.g. 110 acres in Minnesota [Nelson and Mech 1981], 480 acres in Michigan [Van Deelen 1995], 318 acres in Quebec [Lesage et al. 2000]) suggesting that foraging widely on a diffuse food source is normal. Garner (2001) monitored 160 radio-collared deer for 2 fall/winter periods in northern Michigan and documented their behavior over feeding sites using both telemetry and direct observations. He demonstrated that, relative to natural forage, supplemental feeding caused reduced home range sizes, increased overlap of home ranges in space and time and dramatic concentrations of activity around feeding sites.
· Reduction of contact through a ban on baiting and feeding is likely very important to eradicating or containing a CWD outbreak. Epidemiological models fit to real-world data on CWD outbreaks in mule deer predict that local extinction of infected deer populations is likely (Gross and Miller 2001). The predicted outcomes of these models are highly sensitive to input estimates of the amount of contact between infected and susceptible deer meaning that small reductions in contact rates can dramatically reduce the rate at which prevalence changes during an epidemic (Gross and Miller 2001). Garner (2001) demonstrated that baiting and feeding was associated with deer concentration, extensive face-to-face contacts, and increasing overlap of deer home ranges. White-tailed deer have contacts from social and grooming behaviors apart from contact over baiting and feeding sites (Marchinton and Hirth 1984) but social groups of whitetails tend to be small during most of the year (4-6 individuals, Hawkins and Klimstra 1970). Whitetail physiology and behavior are adapted to selective foraging on nutritious plants (Putman 1988). Moreover, social groups tend to exclude one another by using different areas or by using shared areas at different times (Mathews 1989, Porter et al. 1991). Concentration of deer activity over feeding sites increase both direct and indirect contact between groups by increasing home range and core area overlap and by increasing the amount of time that unrelated deer feed in close proximity to each other (Garner 2001). Eliminating these contacts has added significance because CWD is a uniquely difficult disease to manage and study. There is no treatment and no vaccine. Moreover CWD is difficult to track in a population because of long incubation periods, subtle early clinical signs, a resistant infectious agent, potential for environmental contamination and incomplete understanding of transmission mechanisms. These characteristics make prevention critically important (Williams et al. 2002).
· Baiting and feeding continues to put Wisconsin’s deer herd at risk to other serious diseases CWD is not the only infectious disease that threatens Wisconsin’s deer herd. One, Bovine Tuberculosis (TB) warrants special attention because the link to baiting and feeding is clear. TB is an infectious bacterial disease that is spread from animal to animal through inhalation of infectious aerosols or ingestion of other infectious body fluids (e.g. saliva). TB bacteria can live outside of an animal for as long as 16 weeks on a frozen feed pile (Whipple and Palmer 2000 cited in Garner 2001) and Garner (2001) demonstrated that supplemental food increased close contact among wild deer through a number of mechanisms. Garner (2001) also demonstrated extensive home range overlap between a TB-positive deer and 15 other radio-collared deer in northern Michigan. Recent epidemiological research suggests that baiting and feeding of deer enabled the TB outbreak in Michigan to persist and spread and that declines in TB prevalence were associated with a ban on baiting and feeding (O’Brien et al. 2002). Current attention is focused on the CWD outbreak in southwestern Wisconsin. However, should CWD or other infectious disease show up elsewhere, baiting and feeding are likely to facilitate or enhance an epidemic. TB has been confirmed on 6 captive game farms in Wisconsin and the presence of over 800 captive cervid farms statewide suggests that the disease risks associated with baiting and feeding are not confined to the known CWD-infected area of southern Wisconsin.
· What do the experts say relative to artificial feeding and CWD and disease transmission?
A discussion of CWD in a review of the scientific literature on captive deer done for The Wildlife Society (Professional society for wildlife biologists, managers, and researchers; publisher of 3 premier peer-reviewed scientific journals on wildlife ecology and management)… “Concentration of deer and elk in captivity or in the wild by artificial feeding may increase the likelihood of transmission between individuals.” (DeMarais et al. 2002, p. 6).
In a review of the technical literature on CWD by the top CWD specialists in the world… “Concentrating deer and elk in captivity or by artificial feed probably increases the likelihood of direct and indirect transmission between individuals. Transmission via contact between susceptible and infectious individuals probably requires more than just transient exposure. Thus, minimal fence-line exposure does not pose excessive risk of transmission; however, prolonged fence-line contact increases the possibility of transmission” (Williams et al. 2002, p.557).
In a peer-reviewed paper on the epidemiology of Bovine TB by the team of veterinarians, epidemiologists, and wildlife researchers working to contain the outbreak in Michigan… “Previous qualitative examinations of the origins of tested deer already suggested that TB positive animals were more likely to come from the core area. Our new analysis quantifies that risk. The high risk associated with the core coincides with an area of historically prevalent and intensive baiting and supplemental feeding of deer – practices that were likely crucial to the establishment of self-sustaining TB in the deer population” (O’Brein et al. 2002 and citations within).
In oral presentations given to the Texas chapter of the Society of Range Management (Oct. 6 2000) and to the Southeaster Deer Study Group (Feb. 19 2001) by Dr. Robert D. Brown, Professor and Head of the Department of Wildlife and Fisheries Sciences at Texas A&M University, Internationally recognized expert on deer and deer nutrition… “One of the major points of this paper is the concern over transmission of disease. It amazes me that we have not done more studies in Texas on disease transmission at food plots and deer feeders, whether they be for supplementing the deer or for baiting. We know that in 1994 tuberculosis (TB) was first detected in wild deer in Michigan. It is now in a 5-county area, and has spread to carnivores and dairy herds”…”In Wyoming and around Yellowstone Park, brucellosis is wide spread among cattle, elk, and bison, the latter two species being concentrated on feeding grounds in the winter. Likewise, Chronic Wasting Disease (CWD) has now been observed in free-ranging elk and mule deer in several western states. Since CWD is passed animal to animal, concentrations caused by supplemental feeding is believed to increase the spread of the disease” (Brown Unpublished).
In a report issued by a panel of internationally recognized wildlife disease experts who reviewed Colorado’s CWD management program… “Regulations preventing…feeding and baiting of cervids should be continued” (Peterson et al. 2002).
In a comprehensive review of the ecological and human social effects of artificial feeding and baiting of wildlife prepared by the Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Saskatchewan… “Significant ecological effects of providing food to wildlife have been documented through observation and experimentation at the individual, population, and community levels. The increased potential for disease transmission and outbreak is perhaps of greatest and immediate concern; recent outbreaks of bovine tuberculosis and chronic wasting disease in Canada and the United States giving credence to this point. Nevertheless, even if disease is prevented, other significant ecological concerns exist” (Dunkley and Cattet 2003, p. 22).
Review and Acknowledgments To insure that this document accurately reflects the scientific knowledge of prion disease, CWD, and deer biology, this document was reviewed by the following specialists (position and expertise follows each name). I thank them for their time. : · Judd Aiken Ph.D. (Professor of animal health and biomedical sciences, UW-Madison; prion diseases) · Valerius Geist Ph.D (Professor Emeritus, Department of Environmental Science, University of Calgary; ecology behavior and management of deer) · Julia Langenberg DVM (Wildlife Veterinarian, Wisconsin DNR; CWD, wildlife diseases) · Nohra Mateus-Pinilla DVM, Ph.D. (Research Epidemiologist, Illinois Natural History Survey, University of Illinois; wildlife diseases, epidemiology) · Nancy Mathews Ph.D. (Assoc. Professor of wildlife ecology, UW-Madison; deer ecology and behavior) · Keith McCaffery M.S. (Deer specialist, Wisconsin DNR, retired; deer ecology and management) · Robert Rolley Ph.D. (Population Ecologist, Wisconsin DNR; population dynamics, deer management)
BARTZ, J. C., A. E. KINCAID, and R. A. BESSEN. 2003. Rapid prion neuroinvasion following tongue infection. Journal of Virology 77:583-591.
BENNETT, L. J., P. F. ENGLISH, and R. MCCAIN. 1940. A study of deer populations by use of pellet-group counts. Journal of Wildlife Management 37:195-201.
BEEKES, M. and P. A. MCBRIDE. 2000. Early accumulation of pathological PrP in the enteric nervous system and gut-associated lymphoid tissue of hamsters orally infected with scrapie. Neuroscience Letters 278:181-184.
BLOUCH, R. I. 1984. Northern Great Lakes and Ontario forests. Pages 391-410 in L. K. Sowls, editor. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
DITCHKOFF, S. S., and F. A. SERVELLO. 1998. Litterfall: an overlooked food source for wintering white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 62:250-255.
DEMARAIS, S., R. W. DEYOUNG, L. J. LYON, E. S. WILLIAMS, S. J. WILLIAMSON, and G. J. WOLFE. 2002. Biological and social issues related to confinement of wild ungulates. Wildlife Society Technical Review 02-3, 29pp. (available at: http://www.wildlife.org/publications/index.cfm?tname=pubs&pubid=pub20)
DUNKLEY, L., AND M. R. L. CATTET. 2003. A comprehensive review of the ecological and human social effects of artificial feeding and baiting of wildlife. Canadian Cooperative Wildlife Health Centre, Department of Veterinary Pathology, University of Saskatchewan, CANADA. (available at: http://wildlife.usask.ca/english/CCWHCFeedingBaitingReportFinal_Feb2003.pdf)
GARNER, M. S. 2001. Movement patterns and behavior at winter feeding and fall baiting stations in a population of white-tailed deer infected with bovine tuberculosis in the northeastern lower peninsula of Michigan. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, USA.
HAWKINS, R. E., and W. D. KLIMSTRA. 1970. A preliminary study of the social organization of white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 34:407-419.
HEGGEBO, R., C. MCL. PRESS, G. GUNNES, K. I. INGLE, M.A. TRANULIS, M. ULVUND, and T. LANDSVERK. 2000. Distribution of prion protien in the ileal Peyer’s patch pf scrapie-free lambs and lambs naturally and experimentally exposed to the scrapie agent. Journal of General Virology 81:2327-2337.
HUANG, F-P, C. F. FARQUHAR, N. A. MABBOTT, M. E. BRUCE, and G. G. MACPHERSON. 2002. Migrating intestinal dendritic cells transport PrPSc from the gut. Journal of General Virology 83:267-271.
LESAGE, L., M. CRETE, J. HUOT, A. DUMONT, and J.-P. OUELLET. 2000. Seasonal home range size and philopatry in two northern white-tailed deer populations. Canadian Journal of Zoology 78:1930-1940.
MAIGNIEN, T. C. I. LASMEZAS, V. BERNGUE, D. DORMONT, and J-P. DESLYS. 1999. Pathogensis of the oral route of infection of mice with srapie and bovine spongiform encephalopathy agents. Journal of General Virology 80:3035-3042.
MARCHINTON, R. L., and D. H. HIRTH. 1984. Behavior. pp. 129-168 in L. K. Sowls, editor. White-tailed deer: ecology and management. Stackpole Books, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, USA.
MILLER, M. W. 2002. Temporal and spatial dynamics of chronic wasting disease epidemics. p. 9 in R. H. Kahn, coordinator. Chronic wasting disease symposium. Denver, CO, August 6-7. CO Division of Wildlife, Fort Collins, CO. Abstract.
MOEN, A. N. 1976. Energy conservation by white-tailed deer in the winter. Ecology 57:192-197.
NELSON. M. E., and L. D. MECH. 1981. Deer social organization and wolf predation in northeastern Minnesota. Wildlife Monographs 77:53pp.
O’BRIEN, D. J., S.M. SCHMITT, J.S. FIERKE, S.A. HOGLE, S.R. WINTERSTEIN, T.M. COOLEY, W.E. MORITZ, K.L. DIEGEL, S.D. FITZGERALD, D.E. BERRY, and J.B. KANEENE. 2002. Epidemiology of Mycobacterium bovis in free-ranging white-tailed deer, Michigan, USA, 1995-2000. Preventive Veterinary Medicine 54(2002):47-63.
PETERSON, M. J., M.D. SAMUEL, V.F. NETTLES, G. WOBESER, and W.D. HUESTON. 2002. Review of chronic wasting disease management policies and programs in Colorado. Colorado Division of Wildlife Unpublished Report, Denver, Colorado, USA.
PORTER, W. F., N. E. MATHEWS, H. B. UNDERWOOD, R. W. SAGE, JR, and D. F. BEHREND. 1991. Social organization in deer: implications for localized management. Environmental Management 15:809-814.
PUTMAN, R. 1988. The natural history of deer. Cornell University Press, Ithica, NY, USA.
ROBBINS, C. T.1983. Wildlife feeding and nutrition. Academic Press. New York. NY. USA.
ROGERS, L. L. 1987. Seasonal changes in defecation rates of free-ranging white-tailed deer. Journal of Wildlife Management 51:330-333.
SHAKED, G. M., Y. SHAKED, Z. KARIV-INBAL, M. HALIMI, I. AVRAHAM, and R. GABIZON. 2001. A protease-resistant prion protien isoform is present in urine of animals and humans affected with prion diseases. The Journal of Biological Chemistry 276:31479-31482. (available at: http://www.jbc.org)
SIGURDSON, C. J., E. S. WILLIAMS, M. W. MILLER, T. R. SPRAKER, K. I. O’ROURKE, and E. A. HOOVER. Oral transmission and early lymphoid tropism of chronic wasting disease PrPres in mule deer fawns (Odocoileus hemonionus). Journal of General Virology 80:2757-2764.
SIGURDSON, C. J., T. R. SPRAKER, M. W. MILLER, B. OESCH, and E. A. HOOVER. 2001. PrPCWD in the myenteric plexus, vagosympathic trunk and endocrine glands of deer with chronic wasting disease. Journal of General Virology 82:2327-2334.
TAYLOR, D. M., _. MCCONNELL, and H. FRASER. 1996. Scrapie infection can be established readily through skin scarification in immunocompetent but not immunodeficient mice. Journal of General Virology 77:1595-1599.
VAN DEELEN, T. R., 1995. Seasonal migrations and mortality of white-tailed deer in Michigan’s Upper Peninsula. Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI. 158pp.
WEISSMANN, C., M. ENARI, P.-C. KLOHN, D. ROSSI, and E. FLECHSIG. 2002. Transmission of prions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 99:16378-16383.
WILLIAMS, E. S., M. W. MILLER, T. J. KREEGER, R. H. KAHN, and E. T. THORNE. 2002. Chronic Wasting disease of deer and elk: a review with recommendations
That's exactly the way I feel about compounds, crossbows, sights, drop-away rests, lighted nocks, mechanical broad heads, release aids, lighted nocks, scents, calls, Scent Loc, guides, antler restrictions, QDM, food plots, mineral supplements, etc...
Maybe they need some or all of those things to kill ungulates in Indiana and Kansas, but not where I hunt.
Funny how that all works.
DEER MANAGEMENT ISSUES BAITING / SUPPLEMENTAL FEEDING A. DISEASE 1. In Michigan, where bovine Tuberculosis (TB) exists in wild deer and elk, scientists believe that the maintenance of bovine TB in white-tailed deer is directly related to supplemental feeding/baiting and the increased focal densities these practices create (Schmitt et al. 1977). The unnatural circumstances of supplemental feeding promote inhalation of bovine TB bacteria or consumption of feed contaminated with the bacteria from animals coughing and exhaling (Schmitt et al. 1997). 2. Although it is difficult to attribute the spread of disease to deer density alone, some disease problems occur more commonly in areas of high density (Eve 1981), such as might occur with baiting. 3. The evidence that deer baiting causes the spread of diseases is well documented (McCaffery 2000, Mich. DNR 1999). 4. Large quantities of grain, or the sudden ingestion of feed high in carbohydrates without acclimation results in acidic conditions in a deer's rumen (stomach). This kills the bacteria necessary for digestion and causes bloating, diarrhea, enteritis, and in extreme cases death. The visible affects on deer include lameness, arthritis, and a decrease in appetite (Lyons 2000). This condition reportedly occurs yearly in Michigan (Mich. DNR 1999). During a severe winter in Saskatchewan 30% of the deer found dead near cattle feedlots were diagnosed with lactic acidosis (Wobster and Runge 1975). Deer have been found dead and suffering due to this condition in Wisconsin, but the widespread affect is not known (Langenberg 2001). 5. Tuberculosis, a bacterial disease of the respiratory system, can be injurious to deer, cattle and humans (Hyde 1998, Schmitt et al. 1997). 6. Aflatoxin are extremely toxic chemicals produced by two molds, Aspergillus flavus and Aspergillus parasiticus, which are widely associated with moldy corn. Aflatoxins can lower deer reproduction and cause mortality of wild turkey, quail, songbirds and mourning doves (Davis 1996). 7. Despite supplemental feeding, wildlife populations may exhibit poor physical condition and experience malnutrition if their numbers grow to exceed the amount of nourishment provided by the supplemental food. As examples, white-tailed deer on Long Island in Lake Winnespesaukee, New Hampshire, and on Monhegan Island, Maine, were in much poorer condition than mainland deer, even though both island deer populations were supplementally fed by residents (Lavigne and Dumont 1996, Weber 1997). Supplemental feeding does not prevent malnourishment - it just increases the population size at which malnourishment occurs (Pekin and Tarr 1997). 8. Perhaps the best cumulation of arguments against supplemental feeding was most recently produced by the Wildlife Management Institute (Williamson 2000). In this easily readable and well-referenced brochure, Scott Williamson, formerly a biologist in Texas, states, "When and where such feeding is done, it is undertaken only, if not expressly-for the interest of people, because fed animals almost invariably will not benefit and will very likely be harmed by the practice." 9. The provision of food to wildlife has been implicated widely as a causative factor that increases the occurrence of infectious disease. Animals are attracted to artificial sources of feed in higher density than normally occurs under natural conditions (Thorne and Herriges 1992, Williams et al. 1993, Fischer et al. 1997). As animal density increases, competition for food also increases resulting in more frequent contact among individuals (Baker and Hobbs 1985, Schmitt et al. 1997). Contact can be direct through physical contact, or indirect as occurs when two animals share the same portion of food. If one or more animals are harboring an infectious organism or prion, its transmission to uninfected individuals is facilitated by the increased frequency of contact among animals congregating at the feeding site (Miller et al. 1998, Michigan Bovine TB Eradication Project 2002). It is also suggested stress from crowding reduces immunocompetence in some animals, increasing the likelihood of disease (Smith and Roffe 1994, Smith 2001). Disease can affect individual animals, populations, or communities. Depending on the nature of the disease and the feeding location, disease can be transmitted within or between species (Schmitt et al. 1997, Smith 2001), between wildlife and domestic animals (Thorne and Herriges 1992), or even between wildlife and humans (Rupprecht et al. 1995). Non-infectious disease also can occur when wild species are fed foods incompatible with their digestive function (Wobster and Runge 1975), foods of poor nutritional quality (Ohio Wildlife Center 2000), or spoiled foods that have become toxic (Perkins 1991, Davis 1996, Breed 2002). 10. High concentrations of deer around feeding and baiting sites facilitate disease transmission through increased animal-to-animal contact and possibly through contamination of feed (Palmer et al. 2001, Schmitt et al. 2002). 11. In Fort Collins, Colorado, artificial feeding by private citizens is believed to have contributed to the infection of 49 free-ranging cervids with chronic wasting disease (Spraker et al. 1997). Experimental and circumstantial evidence suggests infected animals probably transmit the disease through animal-to-animal contact, and through contamination of food or water sources with body fluids (saliva, urine) and feces (Williams and Young 1980, Miller et al. 1998) Further, conditions of high animal density or confinement can create conditions where transmission of CWD occurs at a faster rate than under natural conditions (Miller et al. 2000). 12. White-tailed deer receiving artificial feed in Maine have suffered from outbreaks of demodectic mange caused by the spread of mites while at feeding stations (Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife 2002, see www.state.me.us/ifw/hunt/deerfeed.htm). 13. Winter feeding of white-tailed deer can lead to starvation of some individuals if the feeding delays the migration of deer to their winter yards, or if artificial feeding is terminated abruptly (Ozoga and Verme 1982). 14. Recent epidemiological research suggests that baiting and feeding of deer enabled the TB outbreak in Michigan to persist and spread and that declines in TB prevalence were associated with a ban on baiting and feeding (O'Brien et al 2002).
My answer is "no" to both questions.
Ban rut hunting!!
I would be curious to know what county these properties are located in.
2. I don't know enough to decide. Limiting freedom can't be taken lightly.
I do not want baiting made legal in Missouri.
Mostly because of the information posted by JTV with regard to CWD and other communicable diseases that baiting seems to amplify I am against baiting in general, but don't care if others do it where legal. On the other hand, baiters should be aware of the potential of disease transmission and know they could be contributing to the problem.
Do you think hunting regulations are necessary at all? Or should we be able to hunt where, when, and how we want without government's involvement?
I've got 3 decades of experience hunting in Kansas. I have hunting relatives on both ends of the state. Most of them agree that baiting should not be legal. Seeing the bait piles in Pat's pics motivated me to ask for other opinions.
There are much larger fish to dry than this one.
Your state is a prime Example of what not knowing what you’re for Or against does. Bear baiting in Colorado.
Don’t like it, don’t do it.
The comment was that people don't "need" to bait. The government has to manage a resource, which would require certain restrictions. But what people "need" in the eyes of some bureaucrat is the last thing I want them deciding.
Good, I'm glad we agree on that.
"However, what l don’t agree with is the logic that because you don’t like it, others can’t and shouldn’t be allowed to do it."
Again, I'm glad we agree on that because I don't care if you enjoy baiting in Utah. I haven't hunted there, nor am I close to any people who do. If the people of your state agree with you, feed your wildlife out of your hand, if you want to. And I hope you enjoy hunting and killing them after that.
I think I've earned my right to have an opinion on KS deer hunting.
I would be curious to know what county these properties are located in.
On my place, I could easily condition my deer to feed out of my hands, just like the turkeys. It would be a difficult case to charge me with a crime, too. The turkeys learned horses are slobs and leave a lot of food on the ground. The deer would learn to do the same thing, if I chose to throw a bit more feed out.
The result would be I could lure the largest buck in my neighborhood to my barn every year. Killing him would the equivalent to picking a tomato from my garden, but I have no interest in doing that. As an outfitter in a past period of my life, I've seen it first hand, both illegally in Colorado, and legally in Kansas.
I would be curious to know what county these properties are located in.
As to whether or not I'd bait in Kansas if it was legal, it would be completely situational. If I felt the situation called for it and it was legal I'd have no problem doing it.
That said, I try not to judge others because I usually can't do it without being a hypocrite. In all honesty, I wish there was no baiting of ungulates in this country at all. But I'll be damned if I'd ever vote to take away someone's right to do that if that's what they want to do - it's not my role in this world to tell another man that he can't do that.
And although not part of the original thread, yet touched on, I think that baiting bears and baiting ungulates are as different as apples and oranges and don't even belong in the same conversation.
The parallels, both in terms of scientific agendas and political agendas are striking, but that is probably a discussion for a different thread.
I have hunted over bait at times and I think there's a fallacy that a bait station or a pile of corn is like ringing a bell for Pavlov's dogs. The handful of times I've hunted over bait I've never killed a deer. I think that even with an easy, readily available food source deer mostly treat it like they would any other food source and there's no guarantee that you're going to get one to show up.
Personally, I have no problem with baiting if it's legal. I also think these are the types of conversations that give ammunition to the antis and they're able to latch onto these issues to slowly dial back our hunting rights.
On one of the places I hunt there are several white oak "magnet" trees that in certain years draw deer like a....magnet.....for an extremely limited amount of time. They may be great one year and empty the next. It takes a bit of field time and woodscraft to detect and find them ahead of time and to see if it'll be a good year for them. To compare that to filling a portable bait feeder wherever and whenever you want it is a non-comparison.
I think baiting deer degrades the concept of fair chase. It basically turns deer into predictable livestock, especially in areas with good populations. The progression from baiting seems to be timed feeders. I'm sure most of us have seen deer run to feeders as soon as they hear the motor running, no different than how my horses come running to rattling a feed bucket.
Then, of course, comes the high fences, genetically altered herds, and ridiculously expensive "trophy fees" for the opportunity to kill a deer like selecting a new car at the dealership. Texas has served as the modern prototype for this digression.
I feel Kansas is headed in that direction, and I think that's a shame for the average Joe hunter. Their DNR appears to be all in on the commercialization of the sport. It now costs a non-resident almost $600 just for a deer tag and a hunting license. Most of the best private hunting grounds have been leased up by outfitters, and public ground is limited and mostly worthless for hunting.
Anyway, I don't mean to offend the baiters out there. It that's what you need to do to see deer, and it's legal in your area, bait away. I will continue to support regualtions that eliminates the practice in Kansas.
"A house divided . . . . "
- Abraham Lincoln
Someday, maybe there will be fellows that will support regulations that eliminate your favorite way of hunting.
this is something I wholeheartedly agree with GG on .... one of those birds just fell of its perch ;0)
The idea that a food plot or a feeder puts animals in a trance is just not what I saw.
I guess everyone has their own anecdotal evidence. Above is a pic I took 3 days ago of the only alfalfa field within 5 square miles of my house. Of course, it's all private, and it's leased to an outfitter. They kill all the mature bulls every year, but if you zoom in on the pic, you can see there are still a good number of bulls in the herd.
It's actually preferable, if you want to live in a free society, to not tell others what to do.
I have hunted areas where if you didn't bait you would never see a deer because everyone one else is baiting. That said I have found that baiting is never a sure thing. My experience has been that the majority of the time the deer would stage about 75 yards back in the woods and wait until I left before they'd come in. The wind direction didn't matter. If it was blowing N they'd stage North or South vise versa. I don't ever recall a mature buck or doe coming into the bait while I was on stand. I have also used timed feeders and just dumped corn on the ground. The only time I have ever seen animals running to a feeder, after it went off, was on a game ranch in Florida.
I have also seen corn fields where you could set your watch to what time the deer would come out to eat. I planted cow peas behind my house this year. The deer tore them up, but only at night.
Not at all. The difference between me and you is that I admit what I don't know. Not only do I not know more than the biologists, but most of the biologists will tell you they don't really know.
Unlike you, I don't have an agenda, therefore I am willing to look at all the opinions, not just the ones that support me and the way I want to hunt. There are a number of biologists that feel that prevalence rates of CWD increase in mature bucks, and because of their travel patterns the dissemination to other doe family groups is greater, yet folks like you I'm sure want to do everything possible to advance the age structure of that cohort.
Ironically, many of the same people that are quick to scream "what do the biologists and scientists say?" are the same people that when it comes to climate change are quick to scream "who cares what the scientists say, they are all bought and paid for!"
Pay close attention to the above video and what some prominent biologists say about the "politics" of CWD, whose doing the research and who is getting the funding.
One question I like to ask when it comes to comparable risk of CWD is quite simple. Virtually every biologist will tell you that the prions responsible for CWD can and do live in the soil indefinitely. Not only do they live there, they can be taken up by plants growing in that soil. Knowing that, where is there a greater risk of contamination, under an oak or fruit tree that has been producing for half a century or more, or a some hunter's pile of corn? Or how about a communal scrape where pretty much every deer in a given area has both pissed in and stuck their nose in year after year after year. Or how about natural mineral licks that have been used so often that the deer have left a hole in the earth that is 2-3' deep? Or how about agricultural fields and food plots that have been producing crops for decades and have had deer urinating, defecating and socializing in for all that time?
Nobody says that a bait site can't be where a deer spreads disease, but it is no more or no less risky than anything else a deer does on a daily basis.
Banning bait is "feel good legislation" at best, and agenda and money driven at worst, with virtually no demonstrable benefit to the resource. No different that banning guns and fossil fuels.
Disagree. Takes time to condition deer to feeders and they still visit them as inconsistently as they do an oak that's dropping acorns. Cause deer are there one day doesn't guarantee they'll be there the next.
I have shot deer off bait, bears off bait, hogs off bait and African game off bait. I still would prefer not to use it for deer and it wouldn't bother me if it wasn't legal in my state. I also am not beating a drum to make it illegal because I am not the type of person that likes to tell others how they should hunt. What makes me tick doesn't necessarily make you and I am ok with that, you should be too.
It's a deer. Meat on the hoof. Go hunt it. Kill it. Repeat as necessary or as allowed. Or not, whatever is preferred.
You can add whatever personal restrictions you like. I know some that add so many they basically are out for a nature walk with a walking stick that happens to have a string on it... I think they have an aversion to dead animals myself.... But any way you massage it, in the end it's still just a deer.
However humans have an inmate ability to rationalize anything and most will given the opportunity.
So, for those who feel prohibiting baiting is stepping on your freedoms, do you feel the same way about prohibiting drones from being used for hunting?
My understanding is Safari Club is the only org that takes high fence....... a good deal to that is the vast majority of African game is high fence. High fence actually SAVED hunting in much of Africa. And both B&C and P&Y take bears that were baited. What logical reason would they have to exclude LEGALLY baited deer? Deer are more "special"? Maybe not "get a grip".... but maybe a tighter grasp.....
It's flippin' deer hunting..... not a religion or religious experience...... good grief....
It's pretty much what you called Pat and anyone who has taken a deer by bait.
Calling an ethical way to hunt unethical and calling guys out is fighting words. It's not just your opinion. It's like calling someone's wife ugly. You aren't just making a statement but insulting someone.
So on this post - you are an idiot.
I would be curious to know what county these properties are located in.
Never going to get that answer.
As far as the trolling many took the bait and we have hit over 100 posts.
I think its time to talk about a crossbow from a drone over a bait pile in Wichita and if you are not talking about in the city limits don't post......lol
I asked 2 simple questions about hunting in KS, and explained my answers to those questions. If that's the same as calling your wife ugly, then again, the truth must hurt.
Now, do you have a logical argument to the baiting questions, other than "if it's legal, I don't care what you do?"
I agree with GG sometimes the truth hurts.
What is more "logical" than allowing each hunter to hunt the way he wishes, within the parameters of the law?
Yep, that's as logical as it gets, Kevin. It also ignores my 2nd question, which was "Should Kansas continue to allow baiting for deer?", in case you've forgotten.
Your answer to that was clearly that you don't have an opinion, and that it should be up to the KDWPT to decide. I respect that, but I also think the KDWPT represents the residents of Kansas, who do have a voice in wildlife policy.
I'm sorry Matt, but that's simply false. I DO have an opinion and that opinion was very clear:
"leave it up to the game departments to determine legal methods based on what their management goals are, and what they want/need to accomplish. Basing management decisions on polls or popular opinion is seldom smart and often counter productive."
It is my understanding that part of the Kansas' constitutional "right to hunt" is that "regulations will always be based on sound science." Michigan is the same way. I specifically do NOT want hunting regulations left up to popular opinion (even that of hunters) because popular opinion is often based on personal preference and not sound science.
Let the game departments base their regulations on sound science and let hunters do what they prefer within those parameters. Just because something is legal doesn't make it mandatory.
It's not hunting, has nothing to do with it, and everyone here knows that. Hopefully they'll take action to eliminate baiting statewide soon.
Some may, however, refuse to accept it.
I don’t see a problem with the baiting issue. So no i don’t think it should be illegal.
The vast majority of where I hunt is in corn country. Including my hunt in Kansas this year. Is a corn pile really that big of an influence on deer?
I learn something every day on Bowsite.
So, their "sound science" showed that baiting on public ground should be banned. I wonder why that same science doesn't apply to private ground? Could it be because that would reduce the revenues generated by outfitters who rely on baiting?
Also, since this is a science discussion for you, how would prohibiting bait hunting affect the deer herd in Kansas? It's not like the state has a deer population problem. If anything deer numbers are way down from years past, largely due to CWD and increased hunting pressure.
Also, since this is a science discussion for you, how would prohibiting bait hunting affect the deer herd in Kansas? It's not like the state has a deer population problem. If anything deer numbers are way down from years past, largely due to CWD and increased hunting pressure."
I don't have the answers to those questions Matt, nor do I have the desire to research it enough to get them. They will never have much of an affect on me me, even if I were to decide to hunt Kansas.
Having said that, I do know that in Michigan, while overall deer numbers might be substantially lower than previous years, many areas are still grossly overpopulated, and most of those areas are private. As a result, the MDNR targets their regulations in order to accomplish the goals that they deem necessary.
Deer will migrate to the best habitat. It is often the case here in MI that deer density on poor quality public land might be as low as 5-10 deer per square mile, and as high as 60-80 or more per square mile on quality private land. Not only can this be true within a specific county or DMU, but it can and often is true within a specific township. This gives the public land hunter the impression that all the deer have been slaughtered and the farmer screaming for increased block permits.
Now let me ask you a question. Let's assume that the KDWP is only concerned with loss of outfitter revenue as you have suggested. Do you honestly think that if they were as concerned as what some people here seem to be about increased disease transmission due to baiting, they would allow it to take place on the very lands that the outfitters make their living on? Do you really think that in an attempt to placate the outfitters in the short term, they would knowingly risk a massive CWD outbreak in the long term, therefore blowing up the entire industry?
Or "could it be," as many biologists believe, CWD is going to do what it is going to do, as it has done for decades if not centuries, and is going to be a part of the deer population at low levels indefinitely, and the public land baiting ban is nothing more than an attempt to keep all stakeholders happy (or equally unhappy, as is often the case) without putting undue risk or strain on the resource?
"There is currently no known treatment or eradication method for CWD, so preventing the introduction of the disease into new areas is of utmost importance to the health of local deer herds. Baiting and feeding deer tend to concentrate deer at small point on the landscape, often with the trails leading to the feeding sites resembling the wheel spokes of a bicycle. Anytime animals are concentrated at this type of "hub," the likelihood of disease transmission increases in a deer herd. More alarming, the transferring of CWD prions to healthy deer is not the only concern. Diseases such as bovine tuberculosis, foot rot, and fungal infections; and a host of detrimental parasites, including exotic lice, flukes, mange mites, lungworms, and barberpole worms are transmitted more efficiently when deer are concentrated in a small area, especially around feeding stations."
So, why take the chance? Because it's easy? Indeed it is easy, and it's only reward is that it's easy.
What percentage of KS land is WIHA? Less than 5%? Less than 10%?
What "sound reasons" would there be to ban baiting on less than 10 percent of the land and leave 90+ percent of all land open to baiting?
Sounds to me like they are just trying to avoid a whole bunch of territorial squabbles between a large number of hunters on a small amount of turf.
Your words "Let the game departments base their regulations on sound science..." Which is exactly what they've done on ground they control.
I think it's akin to trying to catch my horses while they feed in my pasture (almost impossible to do), versus catching them when they come to the barn twice a day for their oats. - Well, this analogy does not take into account the effective range of archery equipment. Many a food plot is designed to bring animals in effective range the minute they step foot in the plot. So, for the comparison to work, you'd have to have a reach of 120' give or take.
They control regulations on ALL the land, yet the only restrict baiting on much less than 10% of it, much of which is much better bird habitat than deer habitat...by their own admission.
A little math (and common sense) goes a long way. At the end of the day, if they allow baiting on 90+ percent of the land, it's not hard to figure out just how concerned they are about the relative risk.
Now, did you watch the video I posted? Are all those biologists wrong?
My answer for both is "no". But, I do not have to bait given the area I hunt and the opportunities I am fortunate to have. Like others said, I do not want government controlling us any more than necessary, regulations here are not necessary IMO.
If I did not have access to good property including a well managed farm (please see picture posted today of great buck, on my habitat thread) and only had the three acres we live on to hunt, I would bait. A lot of folks are not as fortunate as you, or even me. So I am OK with it where legal. Thanks.