SB2137

[riverview]

Ah yes, tis the season for more "Us (hunters) against Them (landowners)" stupidity. Winter is the Hunter vs. Landowner and then again in the fall we get the Resident vs Non-resident, but I digress. I think all of these measures are anti-hunting. They do NOTHING to promote good hunter/landowner relations. Trying to take hunting opportunities from the landowner, trying to tell landowners what they can and can not do on their own land while simultaneously demanding they let complete strangers with guns wander all over their land enduring the ruts, garbage, and other dumbness people do HAS to be a pinnacle of STUPIDITY. All this will accomplish is to bring about the all land is posted scenario quicker. Which does the exact opposite of what hunters say they want. Maybe thats what the proponents of these measures really want in the end. Hunters need to understand that landowners don't owe you a place to hunt. They never did and they never will. Hunters will come out the loser if it ever comes to a head. I know this will piss off some people, but that's the reality of the situation. Carry On!!

Oh and CWD is still an non issue, however EHD is a true herd killer.

yep

 

[wct12]

I’m just saying it seems like with all the opportunity and game to harvest, the agency you guys live to complain about must be doing a fine job.

Fisheries do a fantastic job. Upland goes the same. I’ve been pretty vocal about things the department does right also.

The big game department is very sub par. That year where 70ish people shot deer out of our yard the department was made well aware there was an over population of deer (not on only yard but every wintering ground for deer around was 2-3x what was feasible there). The big game department isn’t proactive like other departments, it’s 100% reactive and more often than not it puts them behind the 8 ball.

 

[wct12]

I’m just saying it seems like with all the opportunity and game to harvest, the agency you guys live to complain about must be doing a fine job.

I’m very fortunate. Our habitat we’ve built gives us a lot of opportunities for deer and even upland birds, and my relationships with guys are the reason for my opportunity elsewhere. But I can show you a good chunk of acres (60kish) that used to be a phone call and good to go or never posted that now are very little access granted because of the big game department/higher ups policies.

Their actions are directly taking away opportunities from sportsmen, and that is a problem.

 

[Pigsticker]

I’m just saying it seems like with all the opportunity and game to harvest, the agency you guys live to complain about must be doing a fine job.

Ya, because of landowners. You honestly think the Game and Fish is responsible for putting all of the food, water and cover on the landscape in a state that is 93% privately owned? They won't even supplement feed in hard winters with exception of extreme cases where a ranchers hay stack might be getting overrun. But hahahaha, thanks, you definitely made me chuckle!

 

[bravo]

Ya, because of landowners. You honestly think the Game and Fish is responsible for putting all of the food, water and cover on the landscape in a state that is 93% privately owned? They won't even supplement feed in hard winters with exception of extreme cases where a ranchers hay stack might be getting overrun. But hahahaha, thanks, you definitely made me chuckle!

Nope, I don’t. I think their job is to manage a healthy population for all ND’s citizens. I think they do a good job with what they have. I commend landowners who provide for wildlife, but supplemental feed doesn’t do a whole lot for deer in winter, it’s usually too little too late. They’re mainly living off fat stores at that point so conserving energy (good habitat) is key. Like you said, with 93% privately owned there’s not much they can do.

Do you think they should only be managing game on public land? Landowners should have 100% discretion of the wildlife on their land?

 

[bravo]

Fisheries do a fantastic job. Upland goes the same. I’ve been pretty vocal about things the department does right also.

The big game department is very sub par. That year where 70ish people shot deer out of our yard the department was made well aware there was an over population of deer (not on only yard but every wintering ground for deer around was 2-3x what was feasible there). The big game department isn’t proactive like other departments, it’s 100% reactive and more often than not it puts them behind the 8 ball.

Ignore the CRP & Soil bank acres. Where is the mismanagement? Should they employ a psychic to predict harsh winters or a boom in breeding? Should each township be its own unit so survey numbers are accurate down to the square mile?

 

[zoops]

I’m very fortunate. Our habitat we’ve built gives us a lot of opportunities for deer and even upland birds, and my relationships with guys are the reason for my opportunity elsewhere. But I can show you a good chunk of acres (60kish) that used to be a phone call and good to go or never posted that now are very little access granted because of the big game department/higher ups policies.

Their actions are directly taking away opportunities from sportsmen, and that is a problem.

So they posted their land or don't grant access anymore because of something game and fish did? Totally respect their right to not give access but that seems like a pretty childish excuse.

 

[wct12]

So they posted their land or don't grant access anymore because of something game and fish did? Totally respect their right to not give access but that seems like a pretty childish excuse.

Call it childish if you would like.. but it’s their private land and their choice. Having proper management of wildlife takes sportsmen and landowners, especially when 92-93% of land in North Dakota is private.

Landowners only chance to voice concerns/solutions to the department is at advisory board meetings. Advisory board meetings are a crock. It’s something the department does to check a box because they are required to. (They did the access meeting this winter in bismarck finally).

Unfortunately the only way landowners have a legitimate shot at the department listening is to control the one thing they can, and that is access. Am I for closing it all down? Absolutely not. But is it the hand they were dealt when they don’t get a seat at the table. Yes..

 

[wct12]

Ignore the CRP & Soil bank acres. Where is the mismanagement? Should they employ a psychic to predict harsh winters or a boom in breeding? Should each township be its own unit so survey numbers are accurate down to the square mile?

Habitat loss is a huge portion of this yes, but the department has a very, VERY minimal chance of getting that back to the way it was so why do they keep beating a dead horse instead of trying to be proactive instead of reactive like I said .

But to say things like supplemental feeding doesn’t do a whole lot to animal health.. in the livestock industry I adjust rations to help my cows through the winter. I don’t let them forage off grass quality hay and pick through standing corn stubble. They are supplementally fed something to not lose fat and body condition. Imagine if deer didn’t have to burn through those fat reserves early in the winter, or the toughest parts of it. The deer herds we supplementally feed in the winter almost always seem to have a higher survival rating then the ones that we can’t just do to distance from us (we roll a bale or 2 out with a pickup when we can or other sportsmen come get feed from us to do it but not near the quantity). Why not try and help?

Last year how many deer died due to the harsh winter? How many more deer does even 5-10% of that not dying or aborting fawns put back? Imagine if 60% of that 5-10% were does and had fawns this spring. Those are opportunities given back to sportsmen by the department being proactive instead of reactive and writing an article saying “we watched all these deer die due to conditions and starvation. By the way we reduced tags by another 5-10k. Sorry.”

Although we already dump thousands of dollars into habitat and feed almost every year, I would have 0 problem hitting that “round up or donate $5 to supplemental feed” when purchasing licenses.

 

[BrockW]

Habitat loss is a huge portion of this yes, but the department has a very, VERY minimal chance of getting that back to the way it was so why do they keep beating a dead horse instead of trying to be proactive instead of reactive like I said .

But to say things like supplemental feeding doesn’t do a whole lot to animal health.. in the livestock industry I adjust rations to help my cows through the winter. I don’t let them forage off grass quality hay and pick through standing corn stubble. They are supplementally fed something to not lose fat and body condition. Imagine if deer didn’t have to burn through those fat reserves early in the winter, or the toughest parts of it. The deer herds we supplementally feed in the winter almost always seem to have a higher survival rating then the ones that we can’t just do to distance from us (we roll a bale or 2 out with a pickup when we can or other sportsmen come get feed from us to do it but not near the quantity). Why not try and help?

Last year how many deer died due to the harsh winter? How many more deer does even 5-10% of that not dying or aborting fawns put back? Imagine if 60% of that 5-10% were does and had fawns this spring. Those are opportunities given back to sportsmen by the department being proactive instead of reactive and writing an article saying “we watched all these deer die due to conditions and starvation. By the way we reduced tags by another 5-10k. Sorry.”

Although we already dump thousands of dollars into habitat and feed almost every year, I would have 0 problem hitting that “round up or donate $5 to supplemental feed” when purchasing licenses.

You know deer aren’t livestock right? Completely different ruminant (completely different stomach). Not only that, it’s already known that supplemental/emergency winter feeding, while it can have some benefits to an individual deers chances of survival, it creates problems with surrounding natural forage, predation, deer behavior and land utilization, as well interrupting migrations in both mule deer and whitetail. It is not a natural thing to have that many deer continually using a small chunk of ground like that.

The game and fish sees high levels of rumen acidosis in tough winters from supplemental feeding. A sportsman’s club in eastern ND tried supplemental feeding in the winter of 23 and still lost a ton of deer. Did they fair marginally better than if they didnt feed? Perhaps. But if a fatal and contagious disease that can stay in the environment for 10-15 years is present, I think the wise thing to do in the long term is to try and prevent huge gathering of deer not encourage them.

Certainly can’t stop them all, and some natural spread will occur, absolutely. But just because natural spread occurs doesn’t mean we should encourage it and promote it just so one user group can hunt over bait.

If landowners care about deer herds. They should be working with the GF to get hay yards around silage piles and haystacks the best they can. The department has already spent 6 million dollars of hunter license dollars on 500 hay yard projects, since CWD was found in ND.

 

[BrockW]

Ignore the CRP & Soil bank acres. Where is the mismanagement? Should they employ a psychic to predict harsh winters or a boom in breeding? Should each township be its own unit so survey numbers are accurate down to the square mile?

Not to mention all of the wetlands that have been lost in the last 20 to 30 years. The wetlands index going forward doesn’t look promising either. I think I saw a recent figure that says at our current trajectory we’re gonna lose half of what we have now for wetlands in the next couple decades.

 

[wct12]

You know deer aren’t livestock right? Completely different ruminant (completely different stomach). Not only that, it’s already known that supplemental/emergency winter feeding, while it can have some benefits to an individual deers chances of survival, it creates problems with surrounding natural forage, predation, deer behavior and land utilization, as well interrupting migrations in both mule deer and whitetail. It is not a natural thing to have that many deer continually using a small chunk of ground like that.

The game and fish sees high levels of rumen acidosis in tough winters from supplemental feeding. A sportsman’s club in eastern ND tried supplemental feeding in the winter of 23 and still lost a ton of deer. Did they fair marginally better than if they didnt feed? Perhaps. But if a fatal and contagious disease that can stay in the environment for 10-15 years is present, I think the wise thing to do in the long term is to try and prevent huge gathering of deer not encourage them.

Certainly can’t stop them all, and some natural spread will occur, absolutely. But just because natural spread occurs doesn’t mean we should encourage it and promote it just so one user group can hunt over bait.

If landowners care about deer herds. They should be working with the GF to get hay yards around silage piles and haystacks the best they can. The department has already spent 6 million dollars of hunter license dollars on 500 hay yard projects, since CWD was found in ND.

I realize they aren’t deer Brock. Does every living organism need some form of nutrition in there? Yes. Does nutrition help all forms of life?.. yes. Is better nutrition more beneficial? Yes.

If you want to head north I can show you however many wintering grounds for whitetails you would like. 90% of these deer do not leave a section of land, and the 10% that do do it to go to a slough for thermal cover and cover right back to that feed source in the winter. I can show you tracks after a fresh snow where deer travel for miles (10-15 miles to wintering grounds up here past land that has fantastic thermal cover just for a better food source, even if it isn’t a hay yard or elevator.)

Predation travels to where ever deer herds are in North Dakota. When we kill 1 pack calling with thermals another pack moves in within a few days. I’ll get 50 trail cam pics of coyote packs a day, Then nothing for 5 days and bam.. another pack shows up. Prey animals travel to food sources, predators follow pretty to food, even in 100% natural settings.

I’ve said I understand the acidosis thing to you I don’t know how many times. How many times have I called for the department to go dump 2,500 bushels of corn out because that version of supplemental feeding will solve all the worlds problems?.. never. I even state earlier in this thread that when we do we usually use a couple different forms of hay, very little grain, and move snow so they can graze beans and corn on their own. I’ve never said winterkill goes to 0, hell, I even shot pretty low in my opinion at 5-10% increased survival odds in the thread you quoted.

If you as a sportsmen cared about deer herds, you would be willing to work with the department to provide good supplemental feed. Instead you’re so focused on a disease that has killed possibly 1 deer in North Dakota, has caused no MASSIVE die offs (maybe it contributes a bit to winter kill numbers in Sask or Alberta, areas where winter is just as hard or harder then here and they have more thermal cover), and is a possibility to be detrimental to the deer herds health. You’re using a possibility, instead of what’s directly in front of you. CWD isn’t causing massive population declines in high prevalence areas, maybe slight decline more so then just the natural lifecycle, but I can show you massive decline in North Dakota’s deer herds due to starvation and winter kill, and I would like to keep the population high enough and healthy enough that in 10-15 years there is even enough of a herd that we can still be talking about CWD (I wish we could eradicate it from the state but we can’t) instead of just talking about the time we used to be able to have 55,000 tags in North Dakota 10 years prior and how that number dropped by 200% again due to habitat loss and winter kills.

 

[wct12]

Not to mention all of the wetlands that have been lost in the last 20 to 30 years. The wetlands index going forward doesn’t look promising either. I think I saw a recent figure that says at our current trajectory we’re gonna lose half of what we have now for wetlands in the next couple decades.

Do you happen to have that study Brock? Not saying you’re lying or anything like that. I’m genuinely curious because I don’t want to see a decline that at all either, and was wondering if it has something to do with easements coming out or what the driving factors are

 

[bravo]

I’ve said before, 2023 ND whitetail population was 150,000. Quick math on the conservative side to figure out feed needed is 5% body weight, 125 lb average deer, we’re taking almost a million pounds of supplemental feed needed every day. And that’s not including mule deer. Who pays for that? And is the population not allowed to ebb and flow like nature always has? It needs to stay static or increase or you accuse of GF of not doing their job and taking from sportsmen.

You seem like the type that would whine if your ice cream was cold.

Also, at what point do we as landowners own part of the blame? Draining / tiling, burning sloughs, clearing trees, plowing to dust. All the food in the world can’t save deer when there’s nowhere to live.

 

[wct12]

I’ve said before, 2023 ND whitetail population was 150,000. Quick math on the conservative side to figure out feed needed is 5% body weight, 125 lb average deer, we’re taking almost a million pounds of supplemental feed needed every day. And that’s not including mule deer. Who pays for that? And is the population not allowed to ebb and flow like nature always has? It needs to stay static or increase or you accuse of GF of not doing their job and taking from sportsmen.

You seem like the type that would whine if your ice cream was cold.

Cold ice cream does hurt my teeth every now and then..

But, as long as nature allows it ebb and flow back to decent levels that’s fine. In the last 10-15 years the population has decreased by roughly 200% and a pretty decent chunk of that is due to habitat loss, but some is also due to winter loss, starvation and EHD. In the last few years a pretty damn decent chunk is winter kill/starvation.

The department is trying to find a CHANCE at increasing decent habitat. But they’ve been doing that since CRP started to come out in big acreage and haven’t found a good solution yet. I don’t except them to replace 100% of a deers nutrition need. That isn’t feasible at all. But they could “supplement” something. I know Utah and Wyoming seem to make it work (I know they want to go away from it due to CWD and congregating wildlife along with some other things like Brock mentions that I hit on a couple comments ago). Areas of the state are getting hit worse could always be the area of focus. Like last winter focus on the south east corner of the state where winter was hardest. I don’t expect the department to provide feed for all 150,000 whitetails. But I’m guessing sportsmen in that Steele area last winter wouldn’t have minded and probably would’ve helped the department out.

I get it’s a different animal literally, but pheasant sportsmen’s clubs seem to do a pretty good job of providing and helping place supplemental feed through sportsmen’s orgs.

 

[BrockW]

I realize they aren’t deer Brock. Does every living organism need some form of nutrition in there? Yes. Does nutrition help all forms of life?.. yes. Is better nutrition more beneficial? Yes.

Respectfully, I think that’s an overly simplified perspective. I haven’t talked to a deer ecologist yet that would tell anyone that long term deer populations need supplemental feeding to prosper over the long term. There are other more important factors driving populations, things that are more sustainable and lead to better ecological outcomes for the land and wildlife.

If you want to head north I can show you however many wintering grounds for whitetails you would like. 90% of these deer do not leave a section of land, and the 10% that do do it to go to a slough for thermal cover and cover right back to that feed source in the winter. I can show you tracks after a fresh snow where deer travel for miles (10-15 miles to wintering grounds up here past land that has fantastic thermal cover just for a better food source, even if it isn’t a hay yard or elevator.)

Sounds like they need more quality habitat.

Predation travels to where ever deer herds are in North Dakota. When we kill 1 pack calling with thermals another pack moves in within a few days. I’ll get 50 trail cam pics of coyote packs a day, Then nothing for 5 days and bam.. another pack shows up. Prey animals travel to food sources, predators follow pretty to food, even in 100% natural settings.

I agree with what’s quoted there 100%.

I’ve said I understand the acidosis thing to you I don’t know how many times.

I can understand your frustration…….believe me.

If you as a sportsmen cared about deer herds, you would be willing to work with the department to provide good supplemental feed.

That is not logical. Habitat improvement and certain disease management strategies are far more sustainable, responsible, and beneficial to wildlife and the landscape. With less risk of negative side affects like acidosis, unbalanced carrying capacities in terms of food:cover ratios, or even the fact that good habitat usually means more wet lands, better erosion protection, healthier soils, better ground water systems, and more diverse systems conducive to producing and maintaining resilient populations. These aren’t pets or domesticated livestock.

Instead you’re so focused on a disease that has killed possibly 1 deer in North Dakota, has caused no MASSIVE die offs (maybe it contributes a bit to winter kill numbers in Sask or Alberta, areas where winter is just as hard or harder then here and they have more thermal cover), and is a possibility to be detrimental to the deer herds health.

I’m focused on many things. Hence the multiple legislative issues were involved in, the travel management plan in the Grasslands, public land transfers, etc.

Sask has been heavily affected by CWD. And truthfully, I don’t mean this to come off as snarky, but saying it hasn’t is either a willful denial of the truth or being dishonest. There are many accounts of Sask hunters voicing impacts in certain areas, deer numbers and buck quality. WY and CO have seen significant impacts as well. Arkansas has recorded impacts. The Wisconsin study will be published in the near future, more gps collared deer dead from CWD. Lots die from pneumonia at or near clinical end stage disease. They leak saliva into their own lungs because they can’t swallow correctly or control their cud. Something that would likely not have happened if they didn’t have a neurological disease that is 100% fatal. As in, no animal, humans included, has ever been documented to have recovered from or survived a prion disease. Ever.

But I would agree that hard winters are likely hard on CWD+ deer. Another reason we want to keep prevalence low.

You’re using a possibility, instead of what’s directly in front of you.

I’m using data from GPS collar work, published and repeatable research, evidence, facts. They might not have all the answers, and they make mistakes or things don’t turn out how they were intended. That’s just working with wild animal populations. But I’m operating in reality. I would argue many, not all, but a good portion of your group are not thinking straight on this issue. I don’t mean to say that in a way that is laughing at you or degrading any of you.

Don’t mean this to sound harsh either, it’s not intended to be. CWD is here. We can either choose to do the right thing for the resource and do what we can to make responsible decisions with positive impacts as a collective. Or we can wallow in denialism about the truth that sits right in front of us. We can make a difference.

If we had it our way we would like to ban baiting, and feeding, in units where CWD is found. I’d like to keep pressure on the 2 units we have it the worst in. I know it sucks, but I think it’s still making a difference. It might get to a point where it’s not making as big of an impact, certainly. But I think since we got on it early and have stayed on if, it’s helped. I’d like to increase financial help for landowners to put up hay yard fencing and/or reasonably adjust their cattle or farming operations to allow for some preventative measures to be put in place that would prevent deer from yarding up over food sources. Won’t be perfect, but we can make a difference.

Even If those actions can only buy us another 20 years of low prevalence in most of the state. I think that is absolutely the best avenue to pursue. Far better than just throwing in the towel after 15 years.

Some of the wildlife health folks I talk to says they’re working on a sort of vaccine. It’s not really a “vaccine” per se, more of a PrP down regulator. But they say results are promising, but that also doesn’t mean 6 months from now. They’ll test it more and these studies take time because of the long pathogenesis of the disease.

, but I can show you massive decline in North Dakota’s deer herds due to starvation and winter kill,

Sounds like we need better habitat. Again, lots of those deer that die in those winters die from acidosis. GF has seen some instances of over 30% acidosis mortality in localized areas, that’s during ND or after hard winters. Likely higher, because they’ll just stop checking to confirm after so many.

Which is funny in some sense, and you might appreciate this. Because at this stage in CWD prevalence in ND, and again prevalence is low, I would say it’s likely acidosis from human feeding has killed more deer than CWD at this point. How ironic is that? Makes me kind of chuckle. I thought you might get a kick out of that too.

and I would like to keep the population high enough and healthy enough that in 10-15 years there is even enough of a herd that we can still be talking about CWD

Habitat would go a long way.

 

[BrockW]

Do you happen to have that study Brock? Not saying you’re lying or anything like that. I’m genuinely curious because I don’t want to see a decline that at all either, and was wondering if it has something to do with easements coming out or what the driving factors are

It’s not a “study” per se. It’s a report that is a wetlands inventory of sorts. The newest update isn’t out yet and I don’t think it will be for another couple months. I’d be happy to share when it’s out. Don’t let me forget.