I understand the reasoning, I really do. I have run a mineral site or two in my day, but none the last 3 or 4 years. I rarely even run trail cameras anymore. I (obviously) don't hunt over bait and wouldn't even if I could. Heck, the food sources I hunt over aren't even that good, mostly picked corn and beans that have had cattle in them, and alfalfa fields that are overrun with much less nutritious grasses like brome and foxtail. The farms I frequent I share with too many people, so food plots would be a joke, and I doubt that my landowners would even allow it. Also, I in no way, shape or form, supplement food to deer, or any other wildlife, any time of the year. So, I think it would be fair to draw the conclusion that aside from conflicts this bill may bring beyond the wording, it has very little, if not zero effect on me or the way I go about my hunting. That being said:
I happen to have a pretty good knowledge about wildlife diseases, especially those involving big and small game animals. I know what makes up the diseases, the hosts, vectors, longevity, severity, etc., etc. I've also been forced into extensive research on specific cases of these diseases and even gave a 20 minute power-point on Bovine TB within the last year. I AM NOT TOOTING MY OWN HORN, HERE! Instead, just giving some background that may provide some backbone to the argument I make.
I'll start by saying that situations in Iowa and Michigan are very different. I honestly do not see how banning feed is going to make much of a difference in the present state of Iowa's deer herd. Michigan had issues with both cattle and deer because of the nature of the deer herd and the fact that both were given opportunities to interact. Michigan had and still has an enormous amount of hunt clubs and what not that had literally fed the deer herd so much that they were WAY over carrying capacity, thus basically ALL the deer had to feed on the same truckload of corn, or whatever else. This continued to happen well after the disease was discovered in both cattle and deer. I realize there are many more cases of disease in wildlife, this is just one example. How does this compare to Iowa!!??
We are operating well under carrying capacity! Proof of this is the number of fetus' I found in the two big, mature does I killed in southern Iowa last rifle season, in a very, very high density area. Both had triplets. Many others reported the same numbers. This particular area had a good balance of timber and crops, but no big, late-season food plots close by and all crops were picked on both the farm I hunted and also those immediately surrounding it. Bottom line, I really don’t think that banning supplemental feeding, whether it be to get deer through the winter, or to get them to pose for the trailcam, will do much more than tick off many whitetail enthusiasts, as it already has. Our deer population and demographic just isn’t one that has to worry about the huge disease outbreaks as other states have had. This could always change, but that's how I feel presently. Our population statewide is on a downward trend. We have healthy deer and healthy deer that are perfectly capable of surviving solely on the food that nature and the average farmer provides are much less susceptible to disease.
On to the other issue… I really fail to see how this ban is going to free up officers any. But at the same time, if an officer like Cutts is saying it will, I would tend to believe him. He is one of the most balls to the wall officers we have and does his job better than most. I think there are some facts of the matter that are still being left out, but thank you Bonker for clearing some of them up!
I really wonder if guys like Willy know something that we don’t. What’s with the scare and why now? At the same time, there can’t be much of a scare if they are proposing to still allow it within so many yards of a building… ARE YOU SERIOUS? It should be an ALL OR NONE situation. Period. End of story.
At present, I’m remaining neutral on this, leaning towards opposing. Like I said, I really have no dog in this fight and the only effect it will have on me or the way I hunt is if there are some side-effects that go beyond what this bill brings forth, such as the “starting somewhere” theory that many have mentioned. I’d still like to see or hear some more information on why the IBA and DNR are supporting this. Maybe I’m wrong but I bet there is more to be said. Also, I'm with many people in saying that we have a lot more to worry about than this bill. There are bigger fish to fry and those bigger fish just happen to be next in line this legislative session.
SURESHOT – I also thought about calling Julie. Her knowledge probably surpasses that of anybody mentioned who has taken a stance on this issue. Let us know what you hear!
