"You just don't "get it" do ya???? Aren't you in Wisconsin???? The state with the CWD Problem???? Go back and read again, CWD IS CONTAGIOUS, AND IS SPREAD BY CONGREGATING DEER, that's WHY it's ILLEGAL in most of the places it's illegal!!!!"

I hunt in places that do not have crop field for 10's of miles---and guess what? I have seen deer congregate in herds of 8-10...........that kind of breaks down the logic as to baiting causes the spread of cwd. Deer will congregate and sure will copulate regardless.

Deer are going to get it no matter where they congregate, all it takes is one sick deer. Baiting has nothign to do with it, it just helps spread it. I read that first case of CWD recorded in WI. was back in 1963 or somn like that. Ill have to find the article again. Theyve had CWD out west for longer than we ever had. And they didnt bait back then, not like they do now. Istill bait but not as much as I used to, but not because of CWD because i was tired of bashing and restocking the piles lol. Now I only bait as a treat. a few small apple piles scattered around the woods, not great big heaping piles of them, actually none of my apples are in piles, i scatter them theres fore the deer have to look for them instead of eating off a pile.

I don't bait...doesn't really appeal to me. Its illegal in VA anyways. That being said, like GMMAT said, there is not really any difference between having the money to own and manage large crop fields that attract deer and being on a limited budget and baiting here and there to attract deer.

No Jeff, they're NOT. A pile of corn doesn't allow the deer to hide in it, maybe even to the extent that you don't even know that a certain deer exists until the corn is cut. When you have a few hundred acres of corn, sometimes the deer take up living in it, and REALLY don't appear until it's been cut and they have no place to hide anymore. It's not the SAME by any means. The only thing that is the same is there IS corn, but one 3'x3' pile of corn is completely different than a 50 acre cornfield, or a 200acre cornfield that the deer have literally been living in for the first 5 weeks of hunting season until it's cut.

Jeff,
If you don't know how to hunt and NEED bait to kill deer, I understand, and that's ok. (NOTE: EXTREME SARCASM!!!) I'm not totally against baiting, I just think it takes some of the "HUNT" out of it. Go to a state that doesn't allow hunting then what do you do???? Then you actually have learn to scout, learn to read sign, and pick a spot and trial it to see if the deer are moving through it in the morning or evening, or if they are even using it at all when you could actually shoot them????



virginshadow,
There's a different between deer congregating under an big massive oak tree in a 50ft radius, and deer congregating on a pile of corn that is 3' x 3'. Read the article, don't just refute what is said because I say it. I'm just putting forth what he true SCIENTISTS aka WILDLIFE BIOLOGISTS found, not some rhetoric that I made up.

One other difference is that one is put there specifically to attract deer and the other one was put there to eventually harvest. Oh yeah, one other difference is that you can get a depradation permit to keep the deer from eating one out of season and the other one can only be hunted during the proper season. There may be more but those came to mind right now.

You highlighted what you wanted to hear in my statement and TOTALLY disregarded the rest of it....which SPECIFICALLY addressed the cover issue. We can discuss the use of corn as cover if you want....but the thread is discussing baiting. Cat tails would work for cover. Conceded.

Before you talk down your nose to/at me.....understand I've killed 14 deer via bow in the last two years and haven't baited one of them. If you wanna discuss how I hunt....I'd be happy to.

Bruce:

I know people here who plant corn and soy beans with NO interest in harvesting the first bushel. I see 'em knocked down and combined in the fields. You think I'm kidding.....but I'm not. What's the difference in this and baiting? I'm not taling about an acre, either.

Take a good 12 volt feeder that throws corn in a 50 or 60 footcircle, and what is the difference between that and a good old white oak that is a consistent producer? Small items spread randomly over thesame area with the same distribution. One was placed by God, and one by man, but what is the real difference? Or that persimmon tree with the especially sweet fruit. Or the natural mineral lick vs the one in a bag? How it got there has almost nothing to do with what it really is.

The disease has been around forever, and has been spread by natural means for just as long. The only real difference is that with modern technology we have just begun to measure it. In most areas of the country, population levels were decimated in the early 1900's to the point disease transmission was very low. It is the near record levels of whitetail population across most of it's range that is really responsible for the spread of disease, not bait piles. High population density is the conduit for rapid disease transmission, and mother nature has a way of leveling the field when it gets too high. Some areas of the country are more prone to it than others. And you don't have to refer me to a wildlife biologist, I am one.

Thanks, Critr

Funny....I talk with our NCWRC bio. a lot via email (Chris Kreh)....and I recently gained access through a neighboring landowner's (to the land I just acquired) property to hunt the land I have permission on (and he gave me access to his 50 acres). Turns out he's a teaching professor (DR. of Wildlife Biology) at WFU (my office is about 1 mi. from campus).

I am wearing him out!.....lol He LOVES to talk about this stuff.

Nice to know that about you Critr.

Without stepping into the ring too much, I thought I'd just share an interesting article published in this month's Minnesota DNR magazine. Not trying to make a point here. Just thought is was related and interesting.

http://www.dnr.state.mn.us/volunteer/sepoct08/bait.html

What's interesting minnesota.....is the findings of the studies and the PERSONALOPINIONS of the quoted contributors don't seem to jive.