General Hunting Discussion
Baiting Bans
So to sum it up JC and PLH, the sacred practice of placing piles of food in the middle of the woods (I have never once mentioned food plots btw) to attract deer really has nothing to do with making it easier for you to harvest deer. What you really are trying to accomplish is to increase the deer population to above what the habitat can support naturally through increased fawn production in an effort to maintain the current level of license sales so there are enough hunters to still harvest enough deer so as to not let the population get too high. That is very noble and selfless of you.
I do not buy the increased productivity argument one bit outside of the neighborhood deer who have access to food year round. I hunt the same public land you do PLH and there are no more deer around right now than if baiting were banned. There is no evidence or data (fawn:doe ratios, percentage of yearling fork racks) that shows that is the case. Winter severity and timing of green up play the biggest role in herd production...BY FAR. Long severe winters mean less fawn production regardless of how much bait got put out in November.
And if banning baiting means we loose some hunters (shooters not hunters I mean) because they think they can't get a deer without it, honestly good riddance. We'll be loosing all the baby boomers anyway in 10-15 years. If land prices drop as a result, awesome, I will be buying some cheap land full of deer because there aren't enough hunters to control them!
All the rationalizations of why we need to have baiting are really quite humorous. Why not just drop the BS and say you are opposed to baiting bans because it makes it easier for you to shoot a deer? Seriously?
It will be interesting to see what happens in Washburn county now that baiting is allowed. Remember it was found in a wild deer so it is physically on the landscape. How it got there is really of no concern. Just now the disincentive to have a sick deer tested is huge. I wouldn't want to be the guy responsible for getting the bait ban reinstated. But hey, the whole state will have it anyway so who cares....unless we get a vaccine that Baiters can mix in with their piles to save the deer one pile of corn at a time 
I'm confined to a wheelchair. I will finally get a crossbow license and hunt again after 12 years now that there is a baiting ban in the counties I hunt in. I can now scout and not worry about drastic deer movement shifts once the season starts and bait piles show up. Deer movements will change over the course of the season due to more normal factors that are more predictable.
If folks want to quit hunting because of the baiting ban and it being too hard to hunt, then that is their choice, altho a confusing one for me. It's a lot easier to hunt without having to lug all that bait around. Cheaper, too.
"Wait a second, now I'm confused. I thought baiting was beneficial to the overall health of the deer herd by adding additional nutrition that allows for better winter survival and higher birth rates and thus higher populations in general? Now you want less deer and allowing baiting is the means to achieve it? "
It is pretty simple, remove baiting and food plot options for hunters (especially in the northwoods) and we lose even more hunters - especially archery hunters. Hunters are the largest factor for deer mortality in WI. When baiting was banned in 2002, deer hunter numbers declined 9.5%, and bowhunting licenses dropped 20%. Of course some of this decline can be attributed to the fear of CWD itself, but it shows how many archery hunters use bait. Less hunters mean less deer get killed.
Those hunting in the northwoods and on public land are more likely not to hunt as there is little agriculture or natural food available to focus on if baiting is illegal. Many people cannot afford hunting land, tractors, and implements. These people rely on public land hunting and use baits like others use food plots. If baiting and food plots were banned now in the northwoods, I would expect license sales there to decline moreso than in 2002-2003. A large percentage of hunters are from the baby boom generation, and without a food plot or bait they simply will quit hunting. 60-75 year old men are not going to expend much effort any longer to hunt for deer.
Banning either one will NOT stop the spread, and only anger more hunters. More hunters will quit hunting which removes the only tool the state has to control the deer population. More deer on the landscape negates disease reduction efforts. More hunters quitting will reduce land prices affecting the local economy. More hunters not baiting or planting food plots will hurt local stores and co-ops.
Wait a second, now I'm confused. I thought baiting was beneficial to the overall health of the deer herd by adding additional nutrition that allows for better winter survival and higher birth rates and thus higher populations in general? Now you want less deer and allowing baiting is the means to achieve it? It's fine by me if everyone who is convinced they can't harvest a deer without waiting for one to come eat at the bait all decide to hang it up.
"Thus, baiting could be a more likely avenue to spread disease. Thus the reason baiting should be banned statewide."
You brought up invasive species. We have had hundreds of lakes "infected" with milfoil, curly-leaf pondweed, zebra mussels, rustry crayfish, and dozens of other species we probably yet have realized have spread. However, the State of Wisconsin still allows you to trailer your boat to another lake. The easy fix would be to require every boat owner to register their boat for a single lake, and prohibit boats from launching on any other lake since you can never guarantee a spore, virus, or weed fragment isn't stuck somewhere in/on your boat. Boats spread disease, thus we should ban boats from being launched in more than one lake.
In some regions in Canada, they have banned all organic bait (night crawlers, minnows, salted minnows, etc.) for fear of spreading diseases. Why in the world does our useless State still allow us to use organic bait? Infected organic bait spreads disease, thus we should ban all organic bait.
Ban food plots? Just as silly as banning baiting to me. If I truly felt that banning food plots and baits will stop, or SIGNIFICANTLY help prevent the spread of CWD, I would be on board. Banning either one will NOT stop the spread, and only anger more hunters. More hunters will quit hunting which removes the only tool the state has to control the deer population. More deer on the landscape negates disease reduction efforts. More hunters quitting will reduce land prices affecting the local economy. More hunters not baiting or planting food plots will hurt local stores and co-ops.
regardless of fence or not, when you put out bait in the same spot it's more likely to spread disease. It's hard to disagree with that point. Thus, baiting could be a more likely avenue to spread disease. Thus the reason baiting should be banned statewide.
The fact that an area DOESN'T have CWD is not a reason to allow baiting. It takes one dumb azz to throw a carcass somewhere or whatever. It's call being proactive. Most government run agencies are reactive.
Take lake Winnebago for example. Not a Zebra mussel for 30 years. we knew they were in the lake before they did. Now all of a sudden it's a big issue, stop the spread. well something should have been done prior. Everything is this state is reactive. Ban the bait, end of story. Hunters will just have to hunt where the deer walk.
The baiter will say, well ban food plots now damnit! it's not fair. Well then we may as well shut all the farmers down too. No more crop growing around the state, deer might eat in your fields and the baiters are mad again. If they can't place food, you can't spend countless hours putting a sustainable food source out cause they might come eat it. Wi is full of babies.
Ban food plots, I couldn't care less. then I can sell my tractor and implements and put about 15k back in the bank. I plant food to help the deer and keep them away from my slob neighbors. They do nothing but wound deer and open their land to the public basically. 12 acres, i've seen as many as 7 guys on it at one time. Bunch of goons. I plant food so the deer stay by us. I don't even want to kill any, I just like watching them and take pride in what i made.
"Zero indication baiting bans slowed the spread? It's funny in the same post you bring up Washburn county, which had a positive in a wild deer and no others since baiting was banned. Would we have had additional positive tests without a baiting ban? You can't say no."
Did baiting cause this single deer to pop up 100 miles from the nearest CWD game farm or wild population? It is almost like people think a deer which eats human-placed corn causes CWD.
"Does stopping baiting and feeding slow the spread?" Maybe, but look what happened here in WI. In Iowa County, positive CWD test results (prevalence) in bucks went from around 2% to over 50% in 15 years (2002-2016). That is significant to say the least. Baiting was banned from 2002-2016.
"No evidence JC? Look at the Hall Ranch debacle. Nearly 100% infection rate in a very compressed timeline. In essence, the feeding practices in many game farms simulate the close nose to nose contact characterized by baiting. A bit of deductive reasoning can help draw some reasonable conclusions... "
That is comparing apples to oranges. The Ranch was fenced in, 80 acres, and about 80 deer. The deer were forced to be nose to nose contact, nose to ground contact, nose to watering hole contact, nose to urine contact, nose to feces contact.....and if they were not fed a morsel of food they would have been infected anyway very quickly with that high of a deer population in a fenced area. For reference, that is 640 deer/sq mile for comparison sake. That is a little different than a wild population, and of course, bait or no bait, the disease will spread faster in a fenced area.
No evidence JC? Look at the Hall Ranch debacle. Nearly 100% infection rate in a very compressed timeline. In essence, the feeding practices in many game farms simulate the close nose to nose contact characterized by baiting. A bit of deductive reasoning can help draw some reasonable conclusions...
It never ceases to amaze me the lengths people will go to in order to justify their practices and behavior.
Concerning the comments on research and funding; I would totally concur that nothing of significance will happen until direct human impact is documented.
Zero indication baiting bans slowed the spread? It's funny in the same post you bring up Washburn county, which had a positive in a wild deer and no others since baiting was banned. Would we have had additional positive tests without a baiting ban? You can't say no. I could also say the opposite that there is zero indication they haven't slowed the spread and be just as right. We just don't know without scientific studies examining prevalence rates in CWD endemic areas where baiting is allowed vs not allowed with wild deer. The problem with current CWD policy is that it is reactive rather than proactive. We wait until we have positive tests before we do anything. With a latency period measured in years, it could be in the area for years before it even reaches detectable prevalence rates. Had the statewide baiting ban been kept in place since the initial detections in 2002, prevalence rates may well be half, we just don't know and we never will. There are many vectors by which CWD spreads and bait piles are one of them....one that we can control. No one can say whether it makes a difference or not, but it won't make it worse that is for sure.
"JC, your statement very likely could come true. What you fail to consider is the time line at which this takes place. If a baiting ban increases the likelihood that disease will not be endemic in my area in the next 20 years rather than in 10 with baiting then it's well worth it to me for this reason alone. No guarantee but statistically a decent chance..."
There has been no, none, zero indication whatsoever that baiting bans slow the spread of CWD. The science behind CWD makes any management effort by humans insignificant. Biologists are treating CWD like a virus or bacteria by following the playbook of thinning the herd and reducing contact. With a disease latency measured in years, not hours, any efforts can only be signified as either political, or making it appear that humans are doing something to fight the disease. If you sat the biologists/epidemiologists at a bar and asked them if banning baiting will significantly reduce the transmission rate, I think you would be surprised with the answer. CWD is the perfect storm of disease - remains active for years in the environment, long disease latency period/asymptomatic carrier . You simply cannot control deer the entire year and stop them from licking each other, checking scrapes, drinking from the same puddle, eating under the same oak, and prevent crows and other predators from spreading the disease.
The disease progression rate in southern WI is astounding, and baiting has been banned since what, 2002? If baiting had been banned in Washburn County before the positive doe was found, would it have made any difference?
As far as funding, yes, funding is laughable. But to blame the State for lack of funding is shortsighted. We are not talking about throwing a million dollars at the problem and hoping it goes away. This is going to take significant funding which needs Federal and worldwide assistance. Unless the NIH/CDC/USDA/WHO gets more involved, funding will be limited. Funding will be limited until people or livestock start contracting prion diseases caused by CWD.
For state funding, I have always said that a great source of income for WI would be to implement paid baiting permits, good only for hunting season. $50 for a baiting permit per year could potentially generate $2.5-$7.5 million annually for CWD state research programs. Turning baiting into a positive makes more sense to me as people are going to bait regardless if it is legal or not. Turning baiting into a revenue stream to combat CWD makes more sense to me. For the comment about vaccinations, what better way to immunize wild deer than use baits by hunters - the cheapest and most effective way towards herd immunization.
JC, your statement very likely could come true. What you fail to consider is the time line at which this takes place. If a baiting ban increases the likelihood that disease will not be endemic in my area in the next 20 years rather than in 10 with baiting then it's well worth it to me for this reason alone. No guarantee but statistically a decent chance...
I agree with Great Outdoors that the lack of funded CWD research in WI is inexcusable. I communicated with a respected animal epidemiologist on this matter a number of months ago. He indicated that state politics have severely curtailed funding for research that was currently going on and virtually eliminated the possibility for newly funded research grants. I was flabbergasted that the "head in the sand" attitude about CWD coming out of the capital building could affect university research to that extent but apparently that is the case in this day and age.
Still, I strongly believe in banning baiting for the multiple reasons I've previously stated with SLOWING the spread of disease being a primary consideration.
