Is baiting counterproductive to gov't harvest objectives?

[SD51555]

Seeing @roymunson 's post got me to wondering. I've seen some guys mention that baiting is allowed in their state to aid in harvesting more deer. Is it possible that all of that bait/feed out there is creating the problem they're trying to solve? I've got an image of an open feedlot look to some of these herds where feeders never go empty. I would imagine the deer would just keep reproducing as long as they've got nutrition to carry the added numbers.

In my country, the exact opposite happens. We are not even allowed to do pure salt. Winter cleans the plate really well and that puts a cap on the number of deer we have.

Just something I got to wondering about.

 

[roymunson]

it certainly raises the carrying capacity, artificially...

During the late season, if you're not feeding, they'll be at the neighbors eating their feed. I'd say our deer are healthier, on the whole, better nutritiion, but there are too many for the landscape. But try to tell and old Boomer to kill some does. May as well ask to take his wife to bed.

 

[SD51555]

I don't understand why people aren't taking more does where there's an obvious problem. I'd put up 100 jars of venison a year if I had the numbers to sustain it.

 

[jsasker007]

I'd think predator numbers would go up right along with the deer numbers. They would also have more available food(deer).

 

[FarmerDan]

I don't know how to start. If we are referring specifically to those government agencies (state? county?) with some responsibility for setting policy and regulation there's too much to know. I would offer this. The Virginia Department of Wildlife is responsible for public policy. The scientists, well, they do science and make recommendations to the department's politically appointed board of directors.

At a board meeting the scientists present and then they are dismissed. The board confers and agrees or disagrees and says here are your regulations. A disconnect. That's interesting. What interests does the board represent? Many I suppose.

The department scientists - wildlife biologists do a multi-year whitetail plan. I assume it's science based. I don't know. I read it and commented and questioned to the wildlife biologists. Their response was, you mean someone actually reads this stuff?

Another admitted they set goals and objectives for herd management buy rarely meet those goals. Because of it or in spite of it it all seems to work!
I think I understand that their main tool for approaching herd population is the number of days in what we call the 'regular gun season' where antlerless deer can be harvested. Varies by county. It seems to work - sorta.

So, what about those government objectives? I'm sure I don't know.

 

[Bill]

I don’t hunt in NJ any longer but at one time there were loads of deer. The state turned on the kill them all switch about 15 to 20 years ago and there are far fewer today. Seasons run from early Sept to late Jan. Baiting is legal and is the norm.

The bait doesn’t help the herd because guys only bait from September until they are done hunting.

 

[Crimson n' Camo]

Baiting was fully legalized here in Alabama three years ago. It has changed things here by allowing the small, fragmented parcels of land to have more of an impact than they've had in the past. Everyone with 10 or 20 acres has feeders and corn piles out now.

 

[roymunson]

Baiting was fully legalized here in Alabama three years ago. It has changed things here by allowing the small, fragmented parcels of land to have more of an impact than they've had in the past. Everyone with 10 or 20 acres has feeders and corn piles out now.

bingo... And suddenly their property hunts like its 3-4x bigger.

 

[Tree Spud]

I know in Wis when baiting was legal deer harvest #'s were not that much higher than when baiting was banned.

What drove our harvest kill # increases was earn-a-buck. Before you were allow to receive a buck tag, you had to shoot a doe.

Baiting never forces a hunter to harvest a deer, EAB does.

 

[Crimson n' Camo]

It’s impacting the buck harvest here much more than the does. I track deer with my dogs for hunters and I go out on calls all the time looking for bucks that would have likely never been shot where they were had it not been for a bait pile. I believe our overall buck age structure and buck to doe ratio has gotten worse in many areas as a result.

 

[Mtyhunter]

Legal in Oklahoma for a long time here. I have put up auto feeders in the past, 200lbs of corn/feed loaded up, like was said above, starting in late Aug-Sep for hunting purposes only. Only took a couple of years of this to realize I was really only using it to concentrate the deer, not to feed them. And, between the cows, coons, hogs, etc...it wasn't worth it at all. Also was reading articles about causing digestive problems with deer. Got off that train and went back to my normal hunting, setting up in the best travel paths. I still take a bag out and sprinkle some on the ground in front of my cameras, and in my shooting lanes, just to get the deer to stop for a second. My results are way better sprinkling a little on the ground as opposed to dicking with a big feeder.
Is it a crutch to establish a bigger herd? When it comes to using corn, which is in the majority of the feeders out there, I don't think it would increase the herd numbers, based on what I've observed. Maybe it could help if it was loaded up year around, but the gain would probably be negated by the digestive issues corn could cause. The way I use bait, not going to help the herd at all.
I'd be fine with the earn a buck system. I usually like to keep my does around until after the rut. If I haven't taken a buck by then, the does going to get it. I do think this requirement would increase the buck/doe ratio in the end.

 

[Crimson n' Camo]

There's no studies or anything to show such........ but I feel quite certain that baiting is also artificially inflating racoon numbers here as well......which doesnt help the turkey populations any.

 

[Tree Spud]

It’s impacting the buck harvest here much more than the does. I track deer with my dogs for hunters and I go out on calls all the time looking for bucks that would have likely never been shot where they were had it not been for a bait pile. I believe our overall buck age structure and buck to doe ratio has gotten worse in many areas as a result.

In the ~10 years Wis implemented EAB, we lead the nation in P&Y and B&C as I recall. It allowed more 2-4 year olds to move to that next age class. It also forced hunters to shoot a doe which were in many units the cause of over populations as many hunters refused to shoot a doe.

 

[SwampCat]

A solid no in my state. Most folks bait 2 1/2 months and done. I am the only person I know who baits after modern gun season - and that is mainly to hog hunt. With a decent acorn crop, deer will leave corn. Very, very few folks bait after season. Baiting is expensive. With tax, corn is running $14 a bag. Most start about two weeks before. A third of our state is bedding cover - varying ages of clearcut. Folks have a 1000 acre lease and may not have a oak tree on it. Cant see 25 feet. A feeder on the end of a dead end road may be the only chance. No baiting on public land. Deer populations on public can be high also. It is also not like everyone baits. Compared with 100,000’s of thousands of left over harvested corn - baiting probably a drop in the bucket.

 

[SwampCat]

Also to consider - our state allows baiting and our fawn recruitment numbers usually run slightly less than .5 fawns per doe. We rank in the bottom five of all states in fawn recruitment. If baiting is increasing fawn survival - I would hate to see fawn recruitment without baiting.

I agree - doe harvest is what dictates deer density - at least in my state.

 

[SwampCat]

Baiting was fully legalized here in Alabama three years ago. It has changed things here by allowing the small, fragmented parcels of land to have more of an impact than they've had in the past. Everyone with 10 or 20 acres has feeders and corn piles out now.

I have 15 adjacent landowners. Six or eight fall into this category. Their land has no deer appeal whatsoever. A lot of them kill a buck and two or three does. Killing the does bothers me worse than the buck. We dont kill does on our property because we know the adjacent landowners will. Without a corn feeder, they would be lucky to see a deer - let alone kill four or five.

 

[b116757]

I don't know how to start. If we are referring specifically to those government agencies (state? county?) with some responsibility for setting policy and regulation there's too much to know. I would offer this. The Virginia Department of Wildlife is responsible for public policy. The scientists, well, they do science and make recommendations to the department's politically appointed board of directors.

At a board meeting the scientists present and then they are dismissed. The board confers and agrees or disagrees and says here are your regulations. A disconnect. That's interesting. What interests does the board represent? Many I suppose.

The department scientists - wildlife biologists do a multi-year whitetail plan. I assume it's science based. I don't know. I read it and commented and questioned to the wildlife biologists. Their response was, you mean someone actually reads this stuff?

Another admitted they set goals and objectives for herd management buy rarely meet those goals. Because of it or in spite of it it all seems to work!
I think I understand that their main tool for approaching herd population is the number of days in what we call the 'regular gun season' where antlerless deer can be harvested. Varies by county. It seems to work - sorta.

So, what about those government objectives? I'm sure I don't know.

What you have just described is yet another government agency we clearly don’t need at all

 

[SwampCat]

We have basically the same program. Basically Biologists make recommendations to the Commissioners and they discuss. The Commissioners are for the most part, successful businessmen but not biologists. But, there is a lot more to game and fish regulations than strictly biological science. Should we allow spinning wing duck decoys - not so much a scientific question as it is ethical, safety, or other non quantitative concern. Commissioners decide personnel issues, financial issues, safety issues, all sorts of things outside science. Let the biologists do their science related work and the commissioners make all the decisions basing their decision on ALL the input - not just science. I see this point of view, and I have a degree in Wildlife Management and worked for Govt.

 

[Turkish]

We have basically the same program. Basically Biologists make recommendations to the Commissioners and they discuss. The Commissioners are for the most part, successful businessmen but not biologists. But, there is a lot more to game and fish regulations than strictly biological science. Should we allow spinning wing duck decoys - not so much a scientific question as it is ethical, safety, or other non quantitative concern. Commissioners decide personnel issues, financial issues, safety issues, all sorts of things outside science. Let the biologists do their science related work and the commissioners make all the decisions basing their decision on ALL the input - not just science. I see this point of view, and I have a degree in Wildlife Management and worked for Govt.

Do you know the translation for “successful businessman” in LA and MS?

 

[SwampCat]

Do you know the translation for “successful businessman” in LA and MS?

As far as it goes here, typically wealthy folks who donate to the right politician