When asked at what point he concluded that baiting and feeding are two separate issues, Ken Anderson of Eagle River responded: "Right from the start; but no one listens to me!"
The issue continues to surface as the debate rages over whether the state should ban the baiting and feeding of deer in areas other than within the Chronic Wasting Disease management zones.
Anderson has been a delegate to the Wisconsin Conservation Congress from Vilas County for over 30 years. A lifelong deer hunter, he recently served on the CWD Stakeholder Advisory Group at the conclusion of which he penned a lengthy minority report that included his thoughts on the issue.
Anderson is also a member of the Congress' Big Game Committee. He claims to have brought the matter before that body as well, but to no avail.
"Baiting is a deer reduction tool - looking down the barrel of a gun," he asserts. Conversely, feeding is a deer survival tool, according to Anderson.
This leads to an artificial food source that keeps deer from roaming through their natural habitat, he said.
"You're looking at the deer through your picture window."
Most of those who would treat the issue separately concede that feeding may increase the threat of disease, but that baiting is limited to short periods using small amounts and has little more potential for spreading disease than a deer's normal, grooming, mating and herding activities. Moreover, observers claim, DNR sharpshooters use bait as a routine practice when trying to harvest more deer.
"I'd like to see a ban on feeding from September through December," Anderson says. "Deer would be forced to leave the protected area at a time of the year when the DNR says we need to hunt them." He remains flexible on those parameters, however, saying he would at least like to see a meaningful discussion of the matter.
Ed Choinski, a delegate to the Congress from Oneida County, raised the question during the organization's deliberations at its state convention recently. His timing was excellent as the group debated the baiting and feeding issue that has gone nowhere since the issue of a ban was first given serious consideration with the onset of Chronic Wasting Disease in southern Wisconsin.
Choinski's take on the issue is somewhat different, however. While he sees the two as separate issues, he views both baiting and feeding as legitimate pursuits that are protected through private property rights. A real estate broker, he is also sensitive to the economic impact of shutting down either activity.
The ban proposal put before the public at the WCC spring hearings passed by a slim 53-47 percent margin statewide with 23 counties voting against the measure. An additional four counties recorded a tie vote.
According to Representative Scott Gunderson, chair of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, legislative action to ban baiting and feeding is unlikely, due in part to divided opinion over the issue. "They haven't been able to find a sponsor," Gunderson said.
Some argue the impasse will only be broken when the envelope expands to dividing baiting and feeding into separate issues so that each gains consideration on its own merits.
The basic questions are these: If the two were treated separately, would the chances of getting the ban on one or both be more likely? Would the hunting community support a ban on feeding when they might not be willing to support the baiting ban?
Finally, is "half a loaf" enough to satisfy those who cling to an all-or-nothing stance on the issue?
- Lee Fahrney can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or at fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
The issue continues to surface as the debate rages over whether the state should ban the baiting and feeding of deer in areas other than within the Chronic Wasting Disease management zones.
Anderson has been a delegate to the Wisconsin Conservation Congress from Vilas County for over 30 years. A lifelong deer hunter, he recently served on the CWD Stakeholder Advisory Group at the conclusion of which he penned a lengthy minority report that included his thoughts on the issue.
Anderson is also a member of the Congress' Big Game Committee. He claims to have brought the matter before that body as well, but to no avail.
"Baiting is a deer reduction tool - looking down the barrel of a gun," he asserts. Conversely, feeding is a deer survival tool, according to Anderson.
This leads to an artificial food source that keeps deer from roaming through their natural habitat, he said.
"You're looking at the deer through your picture window."
Most of those who would treat the issue separately concede that feeding may increase the threat of disease, but that baiting is limited to short periods using small amounts and has little more potential for spreading disease than a deer's normal, grooming, mating and herding activities. Moreover, observers claim, DNR sharpshooters use bait as a routine practice when trying to harvest more deer.
"I'd like to see a ban on feeding from September through December," Anderson says. "Deer would be forced to leave the protected area at a time of the year when the DNR says we need to hunt them." He remains flexible on those parameters, however, saying he would at least like to see a meaningful discussion of the matter.
Ed Choinski, a delegate to the Congress from Oneida County, raised the question during the organization's deliberations at its state convention recently. His timing was excellent as the group debated the baiting and feeding issue that has gone nowhere since the issue of a ban was first given serious consideration with the onset of Chronic Wasting Disease in southern Wisconsin.
Choinski's take on the issue is somewhat different, however. While he sees the two as separate issues, he views both baiting and feeding as legitimate pursuits that are protected through private property rights. A real estate broker, he is also sensitive to the economic impact of shutting down either activity.
The ban proposal put before the public at the WCC spring hearings passed by a slim 53-47 percent margin statewide with 23 counties voting against the measure. An additional four counties recorded a tie vote.
According to Representative Scott Gunderson, chair of the Assembly Natural Resources Committee, legislative action to ban baiting and feeding is unlikely, due in part to divided opinion over the issue. "They haven't been able to find a sponsor," Gunderson said.
Some argue the impasse will only be broken when the envelope expands to dividing baiting and feeding into separate issues so that each gains consideration on its own merits.
The basic questions are these: If the two were treated separately, would the chances of getting the ban on one or both be more likely? Would the hunting community support a ban on feeding when they might not be willing to support the baiting ban?
Finally, is "half a loaf" enough to satisfy those who cling to an all-or-nothing stance on the issue?
- Lee Fahrney can be reached at (608) 967-2208 or at fiveoaks@mhtc.net.
