The fight really is whether mineral/bait stations tend to spread disease any worse than a Whitetails natural way. If it does, we should gladly remove the mineral. I'm not totally sold on it and really don't like the angle that they are coming at it. If it were about hunting over it, they would put a 100 yard restriction for bow hunting and 300 yards for gun hunting and call it good.
I am not looking for a Chevy v. Ford, Republican v. Democrat or Cardinals v. Cubs argument here.
But, what is the science on whether mineral stations contribute to the spread of disease?
I admit, I am skeptical that there is a proven connection or that mineral stations are any worse than what the deer would normally encounter in their habitat, etc, but...I am not interested in opinions, I would like to know factually what it is known about this.
I have no sense that mineral stations lead to disease, but I also do not know that from a scientific perspective. Before we go making more laws and rules, especially those that are "gray area" at best, I think we need to establish that there really is a problem here and not just a perception.
Unscientific, anecdotal observations of mine that make me skeptical...
1. We have had mineral stations on our farm for over 10 years, but have never seen any sign of disease.
2. There have been salt licks out in pastures, not to mention natural salt licks, for decades for cows primarily, but deer have used them too, so it isn't as if mineral stations are a brand new thing.
3. Deer lick each other, touch noses, eat from the same branch/field/etc naturally, are we sure that deer focused mineral stations significantly increase the exposure factor?
If I knew, from scientific study and not opinions, that mineral stations were overall a detriment to the herd, I would fill them in tomorrow.
