Boone & Crockett Regulations clearly classify bait as �fair chase�. And, Pope & Young doesn�t reject it either.
I'm really not interested in what B&C or P&Y have to say. However, I'm very interested in what the non-hunting public thinks, and they--no matter what study you look at--overwhelmingky dislike bait and believe it is unfair. The non-hunting public will decide our future (only 5% of the U.S. population hunts).
Why then do you suppose QDMA has articles in support of supplemental feeding and/or baiting with salt/minerals, etc?
Because in some situations, like the near desert environment of west and south TX, supplemental feeding is necessary to sustain a viable deer population. The carrying capacity of these environments fluctuates so drastically from year to year depending on rainfall. Other situations exist where supplemental feeding is the only way to produce a truly healthy deer population (Limited Potential [LP] habitat).
However, that said, I'm deeply opposed to any supplemental feeding unless absolutely necessary.
So far, disease problems have not been linked to salt licks. But the potential is there for CWD transmission at salt licks (but not other diseases due to the high saline content of the lick, which will kill all living organisms).
Again, if the idea is to prevent disease, why give food-plotters a free pass to concentrate deer? Why not do something like regulate SIZE of plot too, the same way bait pile size is sometimes regulated?
Because there is a huge difference in the way deer feed in a small plot than the way they feed at a feeder or bait pile. In a small food plot they are not placing their mouths directly into the same spot, while at a feeder or bait pile, every mouth is placed into the same location in rapid succession.
I don�t know, but I read that report and man it just seems like it�s difficult to draw any real conclusions.
Are you serious? I feel that report is about as damning as it can get concerning supplemental feeding and baiting. Different perspective I guess.
I mean, first of all baiting and supplemental feeding are lumped together, which seems to me to give baiting a bad rap by association.
Which it should. They are equally as dangerous.
And then the bad things about feeding appear to be more linked to overpopulation than feeding itself. Sure �feeding� could facilitate disease transmission, but isn�t high deer density a bigger issue?
Absolutely. It isn't just a disease issue. It is also a "misuse" issue. Many who supplementally feed do so for the wrong reasons and use poor judgement about the effect of the supplemental feeding. They do not recongnize the signs of the damage they are doing through increased population and encouraging that increased population to concetrate their feeding near and at the feeders.
Supplemental feeding and baiting are complex, multifaceted issues. But the scientific concensus is they are both bad, for various reasons. I would avoid them both. Outside of TX, I have never recommended supplemental feeding to a client. In fact, I try my best to discourage any feeding at all other than habitat improvements.
